Preamble

PRAYERS

MR. AIREY NEAVE (TRIBUTES)

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

British Steel Corporation

Inmos

Post Office

Manufacturing Industry

United Medical Enterprises Limited

British Leyland (Corporate Plan)

Private Companies (Grant-aid)

National Enterprise Board

British Steel Corporation (Manning Levels)

National Economic Development Council and National Enterprise Board

Steel Industry (Road Haulage Dispute)

Companies (Aid Applications)

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPLIFTING (SENTENCING POLICY)

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE)

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)

SECURITY

CIVIL SERVICE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Clause 2

POSTPONEMENT OF POLL AT PARISH OR COMMUNITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS

New Clause 1

USE OF FREE POSTAL DELIVERY SERVICE FOR CIRCULATION OF ELECTION

LITERATURE RELATING TO DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS

Manuscript New Clause

LATE ISSUE OF BALLOT PAPERS

Schedule

MODIFICATION OF ELECTION RULES

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Clause 4

EXCLUSION AGREEMENTS NOT TO APPLY IN CERTAIN CASES UNLESS ENTERED INTO AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION.

New Clause 1

ARBITRATION OF DIFFERENCES (CONSUMER DEALINGS)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

CROWN AGENTS BILL

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WOR KERS' COMPENSATION) BILL

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) [MONEY]

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) BILL

Clause 1

LUMP SUM PAYMENTS

Clause 2

CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT

Clause 3

DEPENDANTS

Clause 4

DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS

Clause 9

SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT

New Clause 1

PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINORS &C.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MR. AIREY NEAVE (TRIBUTES)

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Airey Middleton Sheffield Neave, esquire, DSO, OBE, MC, TD, Member for Abingdon, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I take a few moments to express our grief and horror at the contemptible assassination of a greatly esteemed colleague and, for many of us, a very dear friend? We do not expect these things to happen in this country, but somehow they have happened here.
In peacetime Airey was a very gentle and unassuming man, but absolutely tenacious in the pursuit of everything he believed in and strong to root out injustice. In wartime his valour and courage were unsurpassed. It is partly because of men like him that we meet to assemble in this place in free debate.
Airey asked me whether he could do the work in Northern Ireland. He loved it, felt that he was beginning to understand the sensitivities of the people, felt he had a contribution to make and wanted to continue with it. Tragically, he fell victim to a group of people who, because they were unable to conquer men's hearts and minds by persuasion, turned to killing and murder. We condemn them with all the power and strength at our command.
Airey has left a wonderful wife whose character and courage match his. Her dignity is an example to us all. She said to me "I want only to be worthy of Airey". She is in every way, and we grieve with her.
Airey's death diminishes us, but it will enhance our resolve that the God-given freedoms in which he believed, and which are the foundation of our parliamentary democracy, will in the end triumph over the acts of evil men. We mourn and salute a true and faithful friend.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate Her Majesty's Government—I think that I can speak for all right hon. and hon. Members of all parties—with everything that the right hon. Lady has said about a tragic, violent and despicable murder. Mrs. Nave and her family have the profound sympathy of us all. We trust that she will be given strength to uphold her in what will undoubtedly be a most difficult time for her. I express our sympathy to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues, who have lost a valued and esteemed colleague and a member of their counsels.
I share with the right hon. Lady the view that nothing that has happened—these violent and evil happenings—must be allowed to deflect any of us from endeavouring to secure peace and justice for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have received messages from other Parliaments and from this country expressing sympathy with the House and with the family of our late colleague.
Although I know that every right hon. and hon. Member and every party in the House would like to be personally associated with the tributes that have been paid, I hope we may assume that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister have spoken for everyone in the House. After Question Time I shall be making a statement on security measures in the precincts of the House. I hope that the House will now agree to move on to other business.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): I beg to move,
That

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the


present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session.
(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than 5 o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session; provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid;
(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension); and if such Bill has been reported by any Committee in the present Session, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table; and if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;
(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First Reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of

Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) if the Examiner has reported either that the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable to the Bill have been complied with or that no Standing Order not previously inquired into is applicable thereto, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time in the present Session, it shall be deemed to have been read a second time;
(ii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith;

(10) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(11) only those Petitions against any Bill presented in the present Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session; and no Petitioner whose locus standi has been disallowed by the Court of Referees shall have the right to appear before the Committee on his Petition in the next Session;
(12) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before Committees on opposed Bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
(13) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(14) no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on a Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

I should explain to the House that the purpose of the motion is confined to enabling promoters of Private Bills to suspend proceedings on them so that they may resume proceedings in the next Parliament from the stage which the Bills have


reached. It has always been the practice to provide this facility to promoters of Private Bills before a Dissolution of Parliament so that extra expenditure of public funds is avoided.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I have frequent contact with the chairman on a wide range of matters affecting the Corporation.

Mr. Bowden: Will the Minister seek an early meeting with Sir Charles Villiers to discuss the report in the Sunday Express yesterday that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) wrote a letter to himself and claimed that it came from Sir Charles? If Sir Charles was in any way involved, will the Minister sack him immediately?

Mr. Varley: I did not see the report. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I shall read it to see whether it requires further investigation.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend be having discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on more important matters; for example, the future closure programme? Does he agree that the Government would be wise to curtail severely the import of steel? Will he say what discussions, if any, he has had with private companies about their levels of imports? The Ford Motor Company Ltd. at Dagenham seems to be attempting to put the BSC out of of business.

Mr. Varley: We are trying to encourage, as far as practicable, all British companies to use British steel. I have heard reports about the steel being used by Ford. That is being investigated. The market for steel is still being badly affected by the world depression. About 5 million tons of new steel capacity will come on stream in the next few months at Ravenscraig and Redcar. That will seriously affect older plants in the country.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Minister make it plain that no closures have been


agreed upon by the Government which have yet to be announced?

Mr. Varley: The policy of the Government on closures was set out in the White Paper "British Steel Corporation: The Road to Viability", which was discussed in the House some time ago and in which we said that any closures must be discussed with the TUC steel committee and the local work force. That policy is being carried out.

Inmos

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board about the future viability of Inmos.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My right hon. Friend has had several discussions with the chairman about the Inmos project.

Mr. Arnold: Will the Minister confirm—or deny—that Inmos has yet to decide the precise product range in which it will be involved? Since three out of five members of the original design team left, has not there been some confusion surrounding what Inmos would do?

Mr. Huckfield: I cannot agree with some of the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman has given voice. My information is that Inmos is putting together a successful and acknowledged team throughout the world and that its programme and schedule are very much on target.

Mrs. Castle: Is my hon. Friend aware that Government supporters are concerned about the location of Inmos? Does he agree that it would be outrageous if this important development were not sited in an assisted area?

Mr. Huckfield: I think that my right hon. Friend speaks for many Government supporters. Indeed, many members of the Opposition have made similar representations. My right hon. Friends have already made it clear that we believe that the production units of Inmos should be sited in an assisted area.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Enterprise Board should be congratulated on keeping us in this area of new technology? Without

the initiative of public enterprise our balance of payments would have suffered by becoming many hundreds of millions of pounds in deficit. That is not the only advantage. There is now an opportunity to provide jobs in this new area. That is very important.

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend speaks for all Government supporters. What he says makes a constructive and positive contribution, in complete contradiction to the carping criticism that we normally get from the Opposition.

Post Office

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Post Office frequently.

Mr. Neubert: What are the latest prospects for clearing the substantial backlog of delayed mail and restoring the postal services to normal deliveries?

Mr. Kaufman: There are problems about this because of the unofficial action that has been taking place. However, an offer has now been made and a ballot will take place. In view of that we hope that the industrial action will be discontinued. That certainly is our wish.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister impress upon the chairman of the Post Office the necessity of getting from the postal trade unions a guarantee that throughout the currency of the general election they will guarantee the best levels of performance in the Post Office?

Mr. Kaufman: I fully accept that that is the wish of the House. In expressing that wish we should congratulate the Post Office on the way in which it serves the nation.

Mr. John Ellis: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Post Office will he impress upon him that in my constituency there is under construction the biggest bridge in the world? I refer to the Humber bridge. We have asked him to commemorate that by the


issue of a stamp, but he seems slow to take up the point. As it looks as though the bridge will be further delayed for a year, may we have the stamp next year?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall draw the attention of the chairman of the Post Office to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Warren: Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the Post Office the failure of the Government to market the view data Prestel system? Will he look at the reasons why this system has not been promoted, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend said it would be?

Mr. Kaufman: That is a stupid, carping remark which so ill-becomes our exchanges in the House. Prestel leads the world. It is a major technological development, and the Post Office is doing a superb job in putting it across. The hon. Gentleman should put whatever mental faculties he has to dealing with other matters.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), will the Minister give the House the latest information about the volume of mail that has been held up by this serious unofficial action in London? Is it not deplorable that the Post Office should be reduced to asking customers to post only essential letters?

Mr. Kaufman: I recall that there was much more widespread action when the Conservatives were in office and found it impossible to do anything to deal with the issue. They did not invoke the law. There has been a good deal of interference with the proper delivery of the mails because of this industrial action. It has taken place in London. There are problems also in Newport and Nottingham. We all wish the proper delivery of the posts to take place. However, this kind of disturbance has taken place before. No Government, of whichever party, have found a way of forcing postmen to deliver letters if they wish to take industrial action.

Mr. Warren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory and surprisingly offensive answer by right hon. Member, who may not be with us much longer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to answer the debate next month.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to be here myself.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the index of production in manufacturing industry in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what was the figure for the same month in 1974.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the current level of manufacturing production.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): The provisional estimate of the index of production for manufacturing in January 1979 is 94·9, based on 1975=100. The level of production in that month was abnormally low because of the transport disputes and adverse weather. The corresponding figure for January 1974 was 101·8. Much of the production lost in January of this year will be made up in the next few months.

Mr. Knox: Do not those figures show that the effect of industrial disputes on manufacturing production in January this year under a Labour Government was much greater than their effect under a Conservative Government during the three-day working week in 1974? Is not this especially serious when we consider the increase that there should have been in manufacturing capacity over the past five years?

Mr. Williams: It shows no such thing, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. He knows that a major factor in the comparative figures has been the world recession. As I indicated when we last had questions on this subject, the January drop in production was about 10 per cent. The important feature of the two disputes is that, as I indicated in my reply, most of the production lost this time will be made up within a few months. We recall the catastrophic nature of the three-day working week. In those days I was shadowing the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. Two years later we


were still facing the shortages that arose from the three-day working week.

Mr. Durant: Will the Minister accept that that is not true, and that the effects of the lorry drivers' strike are still being felt in manufacturing industry? The Government stand indicated for the low rates of productivity, which are due to high taxes, trade union interference and all the things that are a disincentive to industry and manufacturing to create the wealth of this nation.

Mr. Williams: These misunderstandings will all be clarified in the next few weeks. The low productivity of this country owes much to the fact that investment in manufacturing industry collapsed under the Conservative Administration. We have had to restructure investment and rebuild it.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) puts beyond doubt the belief that the Tory Party has an obsession with industrial disputes? The hon. Gentleman referred to the industrial disputes which took place under the Tory Government, and he then referred to the industrial disputes of this winter, for which the Tories were primarily responsible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much better if the Conservative Party took to heart the message of the Prime Minister and concentrated on co-operation with industry, rather than confrontation?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that it is alarming to recognise that the Opposition seem to be hell-bent on a policy of continuous confrontation. If the country wishes to see not just a continuation but an acceleration of the type of unrest that we have seen during this winter, it needs only to elect Conservative Members.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister referred to the lorry drivers and the weather in explaining the January figures. Will he confirm that between the autumn of 1973 and the autumn of 1978 there was a fall of 6 per cent. in the level of production by manufacturing industry in this country? Is not that a clear indication of the failure of the Government's so-called industrial strategy and the damage that has been done by creating a climate of the sort so clearly described by my hon.

Friend the Member for Romford (Mr Neubert)?

Mr. Williams: That the hon. Member can ask such a question is an indication that Conservative Members have had their heads firmly buried in the sand for some years. We have the greatest world recession since 1930. The fall in production has been widespread in many countries and not just here.

United Medical Enterprises Limited

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent communications he has had with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board about United Medical Enterprises Ltd.

Mr. Kaufman: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 19 February.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be considerable satisfaction that, after the quite disgraceful bribery in which this company indulged under private enterprise, it can, now that it has a new chairman, under the National Enterprise Board, look forward to a solid future? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of the NEB in saving firms such as this—which had been carried on under the unacceptable face of capitalism—and running them properly is a very important one which ought to be sustained?

Mr. Kaufman: I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I congratulate him and my other hon. Friends—

Mr. Stainton: And Lord Ryder.

Mr. Kaufman: —on the way in which they have pursued this matter. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the healthy way in which the NEB intervenes. The matters about which he has been properly concerned are as nothing to the jiggery-pokery that would go on if the Tory Party got its hands on the NEB and brought about the forced sale of NEB holdings in Fairey Engineering, ICL and Ferranti.

British Leyland (Corporate Plan)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when a version of


the British Leyland corporate plan will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Varley: I am today placing in the Library of the House a report by the National Enterprise Board on BL's corporate plan and performance in 1978. The Government have accepted the NEB's recommendations that we should continue to support BL's plans and that, on the assumption that the Industry Bill becomes law, the NEB should provide £150 million in new equity funds to assist in meeting BL's financial requirements in 1979.

Mr. Miller: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but will he tell the House whether the corporate plan foresaw any collaboration with the Japanese in the production of motor vehicles in this country? Will he give us an assurance that any agreement so reached will be subject to approval by this House, in view of the extent of public funds involved? Will he also give us an assurance that the £150 million is for current projects of BL and is in no way connected with those which might be the subject of any such agreement with the Japanese?

Mr. Varley: I too have seen the speculative newspaper reports, but the NEB—in reports to this House last year and in the continuing reports—has always said that it takes note of BL's wish to establish co-operative ventures on a mutually convenient basis with other countries and with foreign companies. The Government share that view, as I made plain when we last debated this matter in the House a few months ago. It is for British Leyland to judge, in the first instance, which companies and which projects offer the best opportunity, but I give the House the assurance that, in the last analysis, it will be for the NEB and for the Government to approve any joint venture.

Mr. Litterick: Does the Secretary of State agree that, should there be a change of Government, the funds to which he referred would, as the Financial Times put it today, be at risk, and that therefore future projects such as the further development of the Land-Rover, the Range Rover, the super Mini and the Marina substitute project would be jeopardised, and with them the jobs of

many thousands of British Leyland workers?

Mr. Varley: I am not at all sure about the Opposition's policy on British Leyland or the NEB. It is not very clear. For example, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said on one occasion that he is very much in favour of the NEB and wants to support it. He gave a press interview in Birmingham at which he said he was in favour of British Leyland. I am not quite so sure about the attitude of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I think that it is still official Conservative policy that the NEB should be abolished.—[Interruption.]—There we have confirmation from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) will note that. British Leyland has made progress over the last 12 months. There is no doubt about that. The workers and management of British Leyland have improved their overall performance significantly.

Sir Keith Joseph: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember emphasising on many occasions that further cash from the taxpayer for British Leyland would depend upon rising output per man and a rising market share? Have output per man and market share improved?

Mr. Varley: The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman has not confirmed whether he and his party, if they had the chance, would continue to support British Leyland. That will be noted in such places as Birmingham and Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman knows that BL's performance has improved over the past 12 months. The future prospects of BL depend, of course, on improving performance, on ensuring that there is not an interruption in production and on getting the products into the showroom quickly. I have said that on many occasions and it is widely accepted not only in this House but in British Leyland.

Mr. Crouch: The Secretary of State has asked about the Opposition's policy on the NEB and on BL. What is the Government's policy? What is the Secretary of State's policy about advancing more and more taxpayers' money to BL?


Already more than £600 million of taxpayers' money has been advanced to British Leyland, and now the right hon. Gentleman is talking of another £150 million. What is the limit in the mind of the Secretary of State as to how much taxpayers' money he is prepared to invest in British Leyland?

Mr. Varley: Our policies on British Leyland and on the National Enterprise Board are clear. They have been made clear on every possible occasion in the House. We shall want to see the NEB strengthened, because it has been one of the most helpful industrial organisations to be established since the war. The only doubt is whether, should the Opposition be elected to power, that organisation will continue. I am not sure that, if the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) were to represent British Leyland workers in any part of the country, he would take the attitude that he is adopting today. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), who put down the question, has never taken that view. In fact, I think that he will be taking a contrary view from that of the hon. Member for Canterbury when he faces the electorate.

Mr. Madden: First, how many jobs would be lost directly if British Leyland were to collapse? Secondly, how many jobs would be lost indirectly, particularly among workers in component and other supplying companies to British Leyland throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Varley: I do not have the precise figures in my head, but about 200,000 people work directly for British Leyland. Probably twice as many work for the supplying companies. British Leyland is still our largest exporter, and that fact should be borne in mind by all hon. Members.

Private Companies (Grant-aid)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make the conclusion of a planning agreement a condition of grant-aid to major private companies.

Mr. Alan Williams: Government policy remains as stated in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry" and during the debate on the Industry Bill

1975 by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some private enterprise multinationals behave like medieval barons, as Thorn did last year in Bradford when it sacked 2,300 people, put them on the dole, imported hundreds of thousands of items from abroad, stamped them with English names and sold them in the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these vast multinationals, with a fair degree of financial support from the Government, should show greater public accountability and responsibility to the nation as a whole in the preservation and extension of jobs, and that a future Labour Government must ensure that financial aid is tied to planning agreements?

Mr. Williams: The Government side of the House remains committed to planning agreements, though not necessarily linked to grant provisions. Whether planning agreements are to be made compulsory is a matter for the manifesto. I suggest that we wait until it is published.

Mr. Costain: So that the House may better understand planning agreements, will the Minister of State explain what happens when a company which has entered into a planning agreement of the kind that his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) wishes get a telegram from an overseas salesman saying that he can get a contract that will enable the company to take on another 1,000 men? Does the company cable back saying "We have a planning agreement. We do not want the contract"? Does he agree that in such circumstances planning agreements make nonsense?

Mr. Williams: This utter claptrap from the Opposition and the CBI has led to a grave misunderstanding of planning agreements. As I have indicated from this Dispatch Box previously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I am delighted to tell hon. Members. Planning agreements, far from being rigid, could hardly be more flexible than in the case of Chrysler, because they made it possible for the company to be taken over.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister confirm that the only item of industrial policy upon which the Government and the Left Wing of the Labour Party are agreed is that they wish to take statutory


powers to force companies to enter into planning agreements? Is he aware that the Opposition regard that as the clearest indication that if there were any chance of a Labour Government being returned to power they would return to the Left wing industrial policies of the first two years of the present Government's period in office?

Mr. Williams: I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry is far more worried about the financial policies projected by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) than about planning agreements.

National Enterprise Board

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of the Nationtal Enterprise Board.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend met the chairman on 20 March.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all aspects of the public funding of the RR-535 engine are publicly accountable? Will he also give an estimate of the extent of that public funding up to this moment and of the profitability of the project, given the hostility of the Conservative Party and of the recent Treasury memorandum?

Mr. Kaufman: We hope to be in a position before the Dissolution to provide more of the detailed information requested by my hon. Friend. However, it is important for all workers in Rolls-Royce areas to know that their employment would be placed in jeopardy if the Conservative Party were to gain control of the NEB and its investment policies.

Mr. Budgen: When the Minister of State—or one of the junior Ministers—meets the chairman of the National Enterprise Board, will he advise him that no new investment, apart from the immediate

needs of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce, should be made until after the outcome of the general election?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall tell the chairman of the NEB that if the Conservative Party gets its hands on Fairey Engineering, ICL and Ferranti the employment of thousands of my constituents, who know that their jobs are safeguarded by the NEB, would be placed in jeopardy. I shall be making continual reference to these matters during the next five weeks.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend press the NEB to intensify its activities in West Yorkshire, especially having regard to the forecast of anticipated job losses in the Yorkshire woollen industry over the next few years? Secondly, will he undertake that the nine sites in Yorkshire which have been suggested for the Inmos installation, including one in Elland in my constituency, will be visited and examined urgently by both Inmos and NEB officials?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has approached the Department about possible involvement in a company in his area which has problems. It will be recognised that the policy of the Conservative Party is not only to abolish the National Enterprise Board but, in the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), to do away with grants and subsidies. Therefore, my hon. Friend's constituents could say goodbye to any possibility of the NEB saving that company.
As regards Inmos, we need the Tory Party not only to reinforce what my hon. Friend said but to tell us today whether, if it were in charge, it would allow Inmos to go ahead. Not only would the assisted areas which need production facilities be disappointed if it were not to take place, but the people of Bristol, which has the technology centre, would be deprived of that.

Mr. Arnold: When the Minister of State next sees the chairman of the NEB, will he try to find out the exact product range of Inmos? The Under-Secretary of State did not seem to know.

Mr. Kaufman: Announcements have been made about the product range of Inmos. It will make 64K standard silicon chips. If the Conservative Party has


its way, the product range of Inmos will be nil because it will do away with it.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of the NEB to take an interest in the special steels industry in Sheffield, which is getting into a worse mess because of the incompetence of private enterprise?

Mr. Kaufman: This is an exceptionally serious problem, and I discussed it with Commissioner Davignon last week. My hon. Friend may be sure that we are looking after the interests of the steel industry. At the ministerial council meeting in Brussels this week we shall be standing up to prevent the Commission getting its hands on Britain's steel aids.

Mr. Brooke: Will the Minister of State congratulate the chairman of the National Enterprise Board on the decision of Rolls-Royce to invest in North America as being a considerable guarantee for that company's future and for all those who work in it?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly do that. It is yet another of the merits of public enterprise in the NEB, which the public will come to realise even more during the next few weeks.

Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Birmingham city council has put in a bid for one of the Inmos sites? Will he assure the House that NEB and Inmos officials will at least visit the two sites in Birmingham which were put forward, with all-party support, by the Tory-controlled Birmingham city council?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly ask the NEB if it will do that. If the Conservative Party were to come to power, Birmingham would qualify because its problems would be such that it would have to be made an assisted area.

British Steel Corporation (Manning Levels)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Industry to what extent the number of employees in the British Steel Corporation fell during the 12 months ended 31 March 1979; and to what extent he expects the number to fall during the year ending 31 March 1980.

Mr. Varley: I understand that the latest available figures show that during

the 11 months to the end of February 1979 the number of people employed by the British Steel Corporation fell by some 10,800. Future levels of employment are a matter for the Corporation and the unions concerned.

Mr. Gow: To what extent does the Secretary of State consider that there is overmanning in BSC, and to what extent does he have in mind that it will be reduced during the coming 12 months?

Mr. Varley: I have already indicated once to the House this afternoon that the Government's policy was set out in the White Paper "British Steel Corporation: the Road to Viability", where we hoped that the Corporation could reach a break-even position by 1980–81. We must take into account the new capacity coming on stream at Ravenscraig and Redcar. There will inevitably be some closures, but only on the basis of paragraph 15 of the White Paper, in discussion with the TUC steel committee and the local trade unions concerned.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the increase in steel output at Ravenscraig there will be no significant increase in employment, that no industry in Britain is giving more attention to manning questions than the steel industry, that there has been an enormous advance in the industry's joint consultative procedures in securing the success that has so far been secured and that it is continuing?

Mr. Varley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not disagree with anything that he said. With all the difficulties that we have had with BSC over the past few years, the most significant factor is that we have been able to maintain a very high level of investment—about £2,000 million since 1974, with another £500 million or so this year, and perhaps the same amount next year.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The Secretary of State referred to breakeven in 1980–81. Can he confirm that demanning is proceeding on an agreed basis which will lead to breakeven by March 1980, the latest official target that we have been told about?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman, who follows the Corporation's affairs extremely closely, knows that we want to take this


matter on a step-by-step basis. I have always set my face against rigid figures and targetry. That was absolutely wise. If I had said that by such-and-such a date so many people must leave the Corporation we might have had the same situation in this country as there was in France a few weeks ago, with steel workers marching and getting their heads broken. Fortunately, we have been able to avoid that.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend remind those Conservative hon. Members who seem to know nothing about the industry that BSC has made strenuous efforts to achieve the success which it will experience within a relatively short time? Will he remind them that companies such as Italsider and Sacilar in Europe have piled up much greater losses per tonne than BSC, that the problem is due to inadequate world demand for steel, that that is perceived in the rest of Europe, and that that suggests that the rest of Europe and perhaps those of us on the Labour Benches are rather more intelligent than some Conservative Members?

Mr. Varley: There are some great success stories in BSC, as any objective analysis of its programme can verify. For example, at Thryborough and Temple-borough, very close to my hon. Friend's constituency, there is a great success, particularly the bar mill there. Even with all the difficulties over the past few years, the country is still a net exporter of steel.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the Secretary of State confirm—or deny—press reports that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy are seeking to interfere with BSC's choice of coking coal for Redcar? Does he agree that, given the precarious state of BSC's finances, it should be given complete commercial freedom to place its orders where it wants?

Mr. Varley: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend and I are looking very closely at the Corporation's coking coal provision. That does not mean that the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend or I want to place in jeopardy the proper commissioning of the Redcar blast furnace, but there are wider issues involved which we as a Government must take into account, and are expected to.

These are impact on our balance of payments of importing coal, the social impact on some of the areas concerned and the impact on the finances of not only BSC but the NCB. Therefore, we shall be looking at the matter very closely, and we hope very soon to make an announcement about importing coal.

National Economic Development Council and National Enterprise Board

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the present arrangements for consultation between the National Economic Development Office and the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Varley: This is a matter for the Office and the Board. However, Sir Leslie Murphy is a member of the National Economic Development Council and representatives of individual NEB companies sit on a number of sector working parties.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Secretary of State aware that a NEDC working party recently complained about the lack of cooperation from the NEB, particularly in respect of Inmos, and suggested that the NEB should provide the NEDC with at least as much information as a private sector company would? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Varley: Yes, Sir. I agree that it should provide as much information as private sector companies do, and it is my understanding that it does. Perhaps in some respects it provides more, because of the very nature of that organisation. The NEB is linking very closely with the sector working parties in its overall strategy, particularly in electronics. I know that there was an initial complaint from the sector working party dealing with electronics about the Inmos project, but I have been told by the chairman of that sector working party, Mr. Eric Hammond, that it is now completely satisfied with the arrangements for consultation.

Mr. Madden: Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the number of senior managements of firms in the textile industry that have refused to meet NEDC officials and trade union representatives to discuss the industry's future strategy? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend do


more to ensure that the NEB is directly involved to provide alternative work to workers from the textile industry who face the loss of jobs over the next few years?

Mr. Varley: If my hon. Friend will send me details about the companies that have reluctance in co-operating with the NEDC working party, I shall certainly look into that matter. As to the impact of the NEB in textile areas, it is certainly our wish that the NEB's role in the regions should be strengthened. We are hoping to take steps over the next few months to see that that comes about.

Steel Industry (Road Haulage Dispute)

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his latest estimate of the effect of the road hauliers' dispute on the steel industry?

Mr. Les Huckfield: The British Steel Corporation estimates a loss of £50 million in January and February resulting from rail and road haulage disputes and the bad weather. It is difficult to say how much the road haulage dispute accounts for this.

Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure he has just given is higher than that given by his right hon. Friend during Question Time in January? Will he explain whether any further slippage is expected? Is he aware that 72,000 tonnes of steel are currently held up in Felixstowe docks, and have been held up there since the end of January? Precisely what is his Department doing following representations by BSC to it on 22 March?

Mr. Huckfield: The question of steel in Felixstowe docks may not be a matter for my right hon. Friend, but it the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have more details I shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not wrong in principle that one nationalised industry, BSC, does not use another, British Rail, when all things are equal? Does not this dispute offer my hon. Friend a good opportunity to remind BSC of the opportunities and services provided by British Rail?

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend makes a very sensible and well-argued point, but I think he will take cognisance of the fact that British Steel uses not only the

nationalised services of British Rail but the publicly owned services of the National Freight Corporation.

Companies (Aid Applications)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the number of applications for aid from companies, and the industries in which these companies are engaged, by the National Enterprise Board in 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Les Huckfield: This is a matter for for the National Enterprise Board, whose investments are made on commercial terms. I am, however, glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the NEB informs me that many hundreds of companies have realised the possible advantages of a loan or equity investment by the NEB. It is not possible for the Board to provide a precise number, as inquiries will range from those which are not pursued beyond the first contact to those which culminate in an NEB investment. The NEB has in fact so far spent over £600 million in about 60 companies on some 90 separate occasions.

Mr. Hoyle: In the light of that reply, does my hon. Friend agree that if by some mischance the Opposition were returned to power and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) were to rise like Dracula and get his fangs in the jugular vein of the NEB, that would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in my constituency, affecting companies such as Rolls-Royce, and in the North-West, affecting ICL and Ferranti?

Mr. Huckfield: My lion. Friend is absolutely right to express those fears. There are up and down the country about 350,000 workers who work for NEB companies. In Coventry, one person in every five works for an NEB holding. If the Opposition cannot clarify their policies towards what they think about the NEB by 3 May, my constituents and many others can only come to the worst possible conclusion.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not a fact that the applications that my hon. Friend has mentioned also mean that there are many hundreds of thousands of workers who are looking to the NEB to provide the same assistance as it did in my constituency, where it saved hundreds of


jobs at Ferranti and turned that firm from an ailing concern into a prosperous one which is now expanding and which will provide 1,000 new jobs within the next two years? Is it not that sort of success that attracts many applications carrying the hopes of very many workers in Britain?

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a basic fact that many industries in Britain today would not exist were it not for the NEB. That is why the workers in those industries want to know exactly where they stand.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Cryer: asked the Attorney-General when he expects next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Attorney-General when he expects next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Attorney-General when he expects next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I have no immediate expectation, but plans are liable to alteration at short notice.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the simple proposition that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a very important public office, and that he is the only person who is publicly accountable for his actions here in the House of Commons?

The Attorney-General: By "he" I take it that my hon. Friend means the Attorney-General.

Mr. Cryer: I do—and not a thousand miles from where my right hon. and learned Friend is standing.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for that elucidation. I certainly have general responsibility, by virtue of the Act of 1879, for the superintendence of the Director's work.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his capacity as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, be in a position in this Parliament to

report to the House on the effect of the new arraignment procedure in Northern Ireland on the length of remands without trial?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I could do that at short notice. The length of time before trial and the length of trial are constantly under review both by, at present, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has some responsibility here, and by myself, so far as the prosecution is concerned. In due course the responsibility of the Secretary of State will pass to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great suspicion on the Labour Benches that the Consents to Prosecutions Bill, which is supposed to be being rushed through the House this afternoon before it goes to the House of Lords later this week, will remove the whole prosecution process in this country from accountability to the House of Commons? Is he aware that there is great feeling on this matter? Would it not be better to withdraw the Bill and have another go when we have won the general election after Easter?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I have not detected any such great feeling. If there exists any such feeling, it is based upon total misconception, which may be the result of hon. Members reading what my hon. Friend said in Committee the other day.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPLIFTING (SENTENCING POLICY)

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General if his noble Friend will call a conference of magistrates to discuss sentencing policy on shoplifting.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): Sentencing conferences and exercises for magistrates are held periodically. Most of these are convened locally and all magistrates in the area are invited to attend. Particular attention has been given to crimes involving theft from shops and stores and there have been not less than six sentencing conferences entirely devoted to that subject since January' 1978. My noble Friend


regards the present arrangements as satisfactory and sees no reason to convene a special conference of the kind suggested.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I recognise that the spread of self-service trading has caused an increase in shoplifting. However, does the Solicitor-General agree that it is incumbent upon the courts to satisfy themselves that a person who is on a shoplifting charge was there with the deliberate intention of stealing, rather than regarding the offence as a by-product of the trading methods of the stores, which is one of the main causes of the increase in shoplifting?

The Solicitor-General: An element of dishonesty is an essential element in the offence. I think that the courts are well aware of that.
The trading methods of stores is not a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present, and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Magistrates' Association the question of the principle that if a prosecution fails costs should be awarded to the person who has been accused but has been shown to be innocent? Will he accept that there are matters of concern, such as that in the case of a constituent of mine who pleaded not guilty to a motoring offence, when he might have been fined £20 or £30, and finished up with costs of over £70 for the representation that he had, and costs were not given on that occasion? The feeling of the solicitors concerned was that the bench would not have awarded costs.

The Solicitor-General: The question of costs in criminal cases following an acquittal has given rise to problems from time to time. I shall invite the attention of my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to magistrates that a material consideration should be whether the store is prosecuting with or without the approval or the agreement of the police?

The Solicitor-General: It is not a principle of criminal law in this country that the intervention of the police is an essential factor in the offence. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the absence of the police would necessarily be a reason for the court to come to a particular conclusion as to guilt or innocence.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what worries very many of us is that so many prosecutions for shoplifting and so-called petty theft are private prosecutions which do not require the intervention of the police or of anyone else, that many of them, quite rightly, lead to acquittals and that it is not merely a question of costs not being awarded but of the innocent party being destroyed by the fact that the prosecution was brought at all when it never should have been brought?

The Solicitor-General: It has normally been regarded as an important constitutional principle that the individual is entitled, as a general rule, to bring criminal proceedings.

Mr. Lee: Hear, hear.

The Solicitor-General: I think that it would be rather a dangerous principle to suggest that only the authorities—only the police or only the Director—were entitled to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCED PERSONS (MAINTENANCE)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Attorney-General whether he has any proposals to amend the law relating to maintenance of divorced persons.

The Solicitor-General: Not at present. The existing law gives the courts the discretion which is essential for achieving justice in the variety of cases which may arise. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is, however, always ready to consider specific suggestions for improvements of the law in this field.

Mr. Miller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a recent decision of the House of Lords on the extent of liability, particularly for the increase of maintenance payments, and of the widespread feeling among many of my constituents and in all parts of the country that


the discretion to which he has referred is not applied equally? Is there any possibility of them having their cases reviewed? Will he bear in mind the need to issue some guidance, perhaps through a conference of the sort that he has just mentioned?

The Solicitor-General: As long as the courts have a discretion, it is difficult to prevent them from exercising it. I shall draw the attention of my noble Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Whitehead: May I bring my right hon. and learned Friend to the point, which is that the general discontent is with the inflexibility of the courts when reassessing maintenance in the case of a man who has married again? Given that this sometimes leads to bankruptcy and even suicide, is not this a matter which the Lord Chancellor should consider?

The Solicitor-General: The normal rule is that the second spouse is in no way liable to maintain the first family, but it is taken into account if the second spouse has earnings in so far as that relieves the husband of the responsibility which otherwise he would be carrying.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make arising out of the tragedy which occurred last Friday and to which reference has been made at the beginning of questions.
Following the bomb explosion on Friday, I have approved the following recommendations submitted to me by the Joint Committee on Security.
First, Westminster Hall will be closed to the public and the line of route will be suspended. Secondly, all strangers, including guests and visitors not accompanied by a Member, must enter and leave by St. Stephen's entrance; drivers of all vehicles other than cars driven by Members and authorised staff and taxi cabs for Members will also be directed to St. Stephen's entrance.
These restrictions will remain in effect so long as it is judged to be necessary in the interests of security. I understand that the Metropolitan Police will shortly be issuing advice to Members on security precautions which they can take themselves. I know that Members will cooperate in this matter.
So far as the Car Park is concerned, I have authorised the police to check all cars.
Finally, the Metropolitan Police have submitted a detailed report on the explosion, the implications of which are being considered by the Joint Security Committee. For seasons of security, I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into any further details of other measures which have already been taken or may be taken in the future. If any hon. Members have any proposals on these matters they should address them to the Joint Committee. I hope that the House will consider that its interests are best served by letting the matter rest there without questions or points of order.

SECURITY

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I should like first to repeat to the House the tribute that you have made. Mr.


Speaker, to the life and work of Mr. Airey Neave, and to join my voice and that of the Government in offering our deep condolences to his wife and family. In your statement, Mr. Speaker, you have dealt with the facts of his tragic and violent death last Friday afternoon and with the security arrangements for the Palace of Westminster.
On the general issue of security during the forthcoming campaign, I have myself maintained continuing contact both with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I met them on Friday afternoon, when the news of the bomb attack was known, and again this morning. I have discussed with them the reports over the last few months that the IRA was planning an offensive campaign on the mainland to coincide with a general election. The House can be fully assured that the general and specific protective measures undertaken by the police have been enhanced and will remain so. The police are in touch with a number of those who may be particularly at risk, but the House would not expect me to go into the detail of the arrangements being made either here in London or at the ports.
Also this morning I met the organisers from the major political parties and discussed with them the precautions that need to be taken, by and in consultation with the police, to do everything possible to protect party leaders, candidates and the public during the coming general election campaign. As the House knows, the responsibility for maintenance of law and order rests with the chief officers of police concerned. I am sure that they will take all the necessary steps they can to maintain the highest possible level of protection, but I should also like to emphasise now that it is equally a matter for each individual, whether an election candidate or anybody else, to be fully conscious of the need for increased vigilance himself at the present time. Arrangements are in hand for all candidates and agents to receive police guidance on these matters.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn briefly to two other matters which relate to Airey Neave's tragic death. First, the House should be aware that for a number of years the police have been in regular contact with Airey

Neave, and I understand that he expressed himself satisfied with the steps that they were taking for his protection.
Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to some newspaper reports, including one this morning, that the police in Northern Ireland were two weeks ago in possession of a new list of targets and that they passed it to the Metropolitan Police, who failed to act upon it. I want to make it plain to the House that this is untrue. I recieved confirmation from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this morning, after he had seen today's reports, that no such "death list" was in its possession and that it therefore could not have been passed to the police on the mainland. Perhaps I could also add that unsubstantiated and mischievous rumours of this kind are not just a disservice to those who seek to protect their fellow citizens, but they also divert them from their essential tasks.
I mentioned at the beginning of my statement the claim that the IRA would introduce a new terrorist campaign in Great Britain to coincide with a general election. Its objective and that of others who may be involved is both vicious and divisive, but they and their supporters should know that they will not succeed in their objective. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Members of this House will allow the forthcoming general election campaign to be distorted by terrorist threats. They will serve only to reinforce the resolve of the British people not to be divided in the face of violence.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already expressed all our feelings of grief and outrage at the murder of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Is the Home Secretary aware that all steps to tighten security that he is taking now or proposes to take have our fullest and strongest support? Is he aware also that, like him, we believe—indeed, we insist—that neither bombs nor murder can change policy and that nothing attempted by terrorists can be or will be allowed to interfere with the proper operation of our democratic elections in the coming weeks? Is he aware, finally, that we greatly welcome the offer of police guidance to candidates and agents? I am sure that this is valuable and that, combined with common sense,


which clearly must be used in the coming election operations, this will help to increase security.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we wish to reinforce his view that however much the police may do—the burden on them is heavy, and will become heavier—it is up to each individual to stay alert and vigilant to protect the freedom which belongs to us all?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said. His concluding remarks ought to be said by us all. People who think that they can change policy by the bomb and the bullet are elitists of the worst sort, who think that they know better than the electorate. It is the electorate who eventually decide, and that is what we are about now. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: As the last person to see Airey Neave alive, may I be allowed to express my sympathy to Mrs. Neave and her family?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I was coming into the House on Friday morning I was stopped by the police at the main entrance, and that on entering the car park I was checked again by one of the attendants?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that the information that he has given is of the greatest value to the police in their investigation.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall limit questions to those hon. Members who have already sought to catch my eye. Those who were here for Prayers will know that the House paid with the utmost respect its tribute to our late colleague.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Acknowledging the neighbourly sympathy expressed to our people and to this Parliament from across the Irish Sea, may I ask the Home Secretary whether Her Majesty's Government are in full and continuous contact with the Government in Dublin about the security of the whole of the British Isles against the common enemy of constitutional democracy in the United Kingdom and in the Republic alike?

Mr. Rees: I can assure the hon. Gentleman about that. It is not a matter

of the Government's being in contact. There is full contact at all times. I pay tribute to the co-operation that takes place.

Mr. Lee: Last Friday's episode was not the first, although it was incomparably the worst outbreak perpetrated in the House in the last few years. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that adequate alarm arrangements exist for the protection of members of the staff? I understand, although I have not been able to verify, that when this incident occurred the alarm sirens did not sound, and secretaries on the lower ground floor did not know what was amiss for a considerable time afterwards. That may not have mattered in this instance, but since we cannot rule out the possibility of repetitions we need the clearest guidance for the protection of people besides Members of Parliament.

Mr. Rees: Mr. Speaker spoke about what is needed in Parliament. I believe that any information possessed by my hon. Friend should be passed to the proper quarter.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to those hon. Members whom I intend to call, who have already stood, to realise that all of us want to be as brief as possible and not to extend exchanges more than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On the wider question of security about which he has spoken, will the Home Secretary give the House his personal assurance that he is ensuring that sufficient trained personnel are available to the various specialists of the armed squads of the Metropolitan Police to do this job? Will he also give an assurance that he is aware of the potential danger from precision—guided munitions that may fall into the wrong hands from both the NATO and Warsaw Pact armies? Finally, will he ensure that the disparity between the potential threat and the resources available to the police is his constant pre-occupation?

Mr. Rees: On matters of protection and the solving of these many murders in Northern Ireland as well as over here—they have been going on for a long time—I have no doubt that all that is required is being done. I have complete confidence in the police in this matter, as in many others.

Mr. Freud: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to associate ourselves with the remarks made about Mr. Airey Neave. I served with him at Nuremberg. He was a kind and honourable man, much loved by all those who came into contact with him and immensely respected by those who did not have that privilege. Regarding the security arrangements and the statement by the Conservative spokesman about all efforts being made to tighten up security, I would like to tell the Home Secretary and the House that on Saturday morning the security department of the House telephoned a constitutent of mine who had arranged a party for 80 people and told him to cancel the walk through the House of Commons and the lunch, without telling me. As a result of that discourtesy, there is lunch for 80 people downstairs—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, I believe, misjudges the atmosphere of the whole House. I hope that we can pass on without complaints being made about security personnel, who are doing a superb job.

Mr. Freud: Today, Mr. Speaker, my car was examined by a security man who had a lighted cigarette in his mouth. I would like to suggest that such panic measures are no help—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would say to the House that we are undertaking commonsense precautions. I deprecate the remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the security forces.

Mr. Kilfedder: On behalf of the Ulster people, may I convey heartfelt sympathy to the wife and family of Airey Neave, a gentle, wise and courageous man who lived and died a patriot, in the best sense of that word? With regard to security in the Palace of Westminster, will consideration be given to stopping the public going into the Members' Lobby when the House is sitting? Two weeks ago, a young woman made a dash for the door when walking up to the Public Gallery.

Mr. Rees: With regard to anything that takes place in this House and in Parliament, I would tell the hon. Gentleman that this House is independent. These matters should be brought to the Joint Security

Committee. I would suggest that it is better done that way.

Mr. Goodhart: As so many leaders of opinion in the Irish Republic have been quick and eloquent in their praise of Airey Neave's fight against terrorism, will the Government make a fresh approach to the authorities in Dublin to see whether we can combine to improve the co-ordination of our joint struggle against a joint enemy?

Mr. Rees: Replying to that generally and making no assumptions about what caused the tragic death of our colleague, the answer is "Yes. We are always doing that."

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call three more hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Fitt: As an Irishman who believes in the unity of Ireland, I should like to express my revulsion and horror at the terrible tragedy that took place last Friday. I would like to say, from the Floor of this House—again as one who believes in a united Ireland—that I will not live in a united Ireland brought about by the commission of such terrible crimes. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the identity of the INLA, which would appear to be responsible? Has it a political association with any political organisation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: On that point, and on the question of the investigations that are taking place, both my hon. Friend and myself know where that party and its associates stand. I think that it would be better if I said nothing about it.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Home Secretary explain why, in the case of the late member for Abingdon, despite full security precautions at his country home and whenever he visited Northern Ireland, no similar provisions were made for his security while in London?

Mr. Rees: Any judgment on that would not be for me. I made my statement deliberately. I stick by that.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that the punishment for convicted terrorists is a sufficient deterrent, bearing in mind that life sentences do not always last for life?

Mr. Rees: This is not an appropriate moment for me to join in an argument on that issue. It is better left for another time.

CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the strike by the Civil Service
The matter is specific. It is a strike by all eight Civil Service unions. I should declare that I am the honorary parliamentary adviser of one of those unions. The matter is of the utmost importance. Unless the Civil Service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was only trying to obtain order for the hon. Gentleman. A large number of hon. Members were inevitably leaving the Chamber at that stage. Mr. Hal Miller.

Mr. Miller: Unless the civil servants are willing and able to carry out political instructions from the Government of the day, public business in this country must be brought to a halt. It is of vital importance, because the whole strategy of the Government's pay policy has depended upon the principle of comparability. Indeed, the recent strike of the local government workers was settled only on that basis, despite the continuing objections of one union, NUPE.
The issue is of great importance, because of the manner in which the Government have mishandled relations with their own employees. The only result of the way in which the matter has been handled—not only the initial offer being less than the dustmen's, but the attempt by the Secretary of State for Prices to split the union side—has been to endanger the whole future of the Whitley machinery. Whatever the complexion of the Government elected in May, they cannot contemplate that with equanimity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member really must direct his remarks to proving that the matter that he wishes to raise is important, specific and urgent

enough for me to change the order of the business. He should not state his case now as if I had already granted the application.

Mr. Miller: I was trying to avoid stating the case, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to emphasise the importance of the Whitley Council machinery as a means of settling pay for the Civil Service and as a forum for negotiations by the management side, the Civil Service Department, with the Civil Service. All hon. Members will agree on the importance of that procedure, which has been threatened.
The matter is clearly urgent, not only because of the payments being help up to farmers and repayments of VAT but because of the threat to Government revenue, quite apart from the considerable and continuing inconvenience to the public in aircraft flights and other matters.
For these reasons—that the strike is specific, important and urgent—I apply for permission to move the Adjournment of the House to allow the matter to be debated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the strike by the Civil Service.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened with great care to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That if the Representation of the People Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on the Motion relating to Representation of the People [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Party.

3.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I made a short statement to the House last Thursday afternoon on the contents of this Bill, which is a simple and necessary measure. Its purpose is to facilitate polling on 3 May, when, as the House knows, we are to have a parliamentary general election on the same day as district council elections are due in England, outside Greater London, and in Wales. There are of course no local government elections on 3 May in London, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
This Bill is not radical or far-reaching in effect. As I have consistently said—most recently during the debate on the European Assembly elections regulations—there has never been any constitutional or legislative obstacle to holding two elections on the same day. It is certainly theoretically possible to hold two separate elections on the same day without legislation, but Parliament has always considered, rightly I believe, that the practical and administrative difficulties involved are such that special provision is essential.
It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members of the arrangements which already exist to combine the elections of district and parish councillors. Since at least 1933, there has been provision in the Local Government Acts that when the election years of those councillors coincide, the elections may be combined. There is no provision in the Local Government Act 1972 or in the subsequent election rules made under that Act for different coloured ballot papers or for the use of the same polling station and staff.
I recognise that to meet the particular problems and special circumstances of 3

May this Bill has to be a little more extensive than that, but I should like to stress that we have made the minimum alterations necessary to the legislation and regulations governing the conduct of parliamentary and local elections. We have made no fundamental changes. The Bill could be described as a bridging operation, bridging the differences between the conduct of parliamentary and local elections, so that they may both carry on side by side in accordance, as far as possible, with normal practice.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel) rose—

Mr. Rees: There will be plenty of time to discuss detail, but I will certainly give way.

Mr. Marshall: I wanted to clear up one point while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. Can he confirm that returning officers will be given discretion, if they have enough ballot boxes, to use separate boxes for district council votes and general election votes?

Mr. Rees: That is not the case. I will come to that in a moment.
The Bill provides for district council elections to be held using the same polling facilities as for the parliamentary elections. Where, in a few cases, there are London borough or county council by-elections, they will proceed separately and in the ordinary way.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I raised this point first with him when he made his helpful statement last Thursday. He assumed then, as I think all of us did, that there was some provision which might have covered London. However, does he now realise—if he looks at Hansard, I think that he will see that there was a genuine misunderstanding—that certainly in my constituency and probably in others in Greater London, voters arriving at five minutes past seven o'clock will be given one ballot paper for a parliamentary vote but will be told that they must come back at five past eight o'clock in two of the 11 wards in my constituency to vote in the borough council by-elections? Is it really impossible to bring those by-elections, where they take place, under the same Bill?

Mr. Rees: Hon. Members will realise that there are no district council elections in London. It is certainly not impossible; there are two by-elections in London and I know of two other places in the country. I considered this. My view is that if there are any by-elections to be held on that day, they should be held under the normal rules and regulations. I am sure that that is the best way in which to proceed.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of separate facilities. In metropolitan county council by-elections, what separate arrangements will apply in addition to those for district council and parliamentary elections?

Mr. Rees: Under the arrangements that we are setting up, we shall all use the same polling booth for Westminster elections and for district council elections. Otherwise there would have to be a separate room, with separate ballot boxes, and those elections could not be involved with the elections that we are dealing with here. There will be only a handful of those in different parts of the country.
The Bill is a contingency measure, designed to meet the circumstances of the elections on 3 May. If, for example, by some circumstance the general election had been held on 7 June, a different Bill would have been needed to provide for that election and European Assembly elections on the same day.
Before turning to the provisions of the Bill, I should say something in recognition of the responsibilities which the Bill will impose upon acting returning officers in England and Wales. They are generally senior officials of district councils. I am aware that the standard opening speech by any election candidate on election night, whether he wins or loses, expresses his indebtedness to the acting returning officer and his staff. On this occasion, whatever the outcome of the individual contest, we shall be more than ever indebted.
Although I believe that the procedures consequent on this legislation are straightforward and involve no radical departure from the way in which we conduct our elections, there will be heavy pressures of work and responsibilities on the returning

officer and his staff. We should not forget that during this election.

Mr. Dudley Smith: May I make one point, which I believe is fairly important? Given that people will be voting in more than one election, will the right hon. Gentleman give guidance to election officers and their staffs about whether they should call the attention of electors to the fact that they may have a second or third ballot paper in order to vote, or will that be left to the initiative of the individual who is arriving at the ballot booth?

Mr. Rees: The normal advice will be given in this respect. I assure the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) that there need be no—

Mr. Smith: What is the normal advice?

Mr. Rees: Advice on this is posted outside the polling booth. When we reach the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a section in the schedule concerning the advice and guidance that should be given, and we can look at it in depth when we come to the schedule.

Mr. Clement Freud: On the subject of advice and guidance, I notice that on the Home Office document returning officers are told to count both lots of papers before they sort the parliamentary papers. In order to save a great deal of time in counting the district council election slips, would it not be possible to leave it to the discretion of the returning officer whether he should shoot all the district council slips back into the box and lock them up until the next day?

Mr. Rees: I shall come to that in a moment, but I have arranged for the different coloured ballot papers to be available by five o'clock this evening so that right hon. and hon. Members may look at them. I believe that the initial sorting will need to be done very carefully. In that sense the count will be an additional check to ensure that a general election paper has not gone away to a district election count. However, we shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps we can leave the matter there.

Mr. Michael English: I know that my right hon. Friend is trying to answer as well as he can, and I do not expect an immediate answer, but nowhere in the Bill is there any mention of the vital matter of election expenses. It may be inaccurate, but many people in various localities are suggesting that two election addresses can be put in one envelope, that two or three names can appear on one poster, and so on. I wonder whether—not necessarily now but before the debate ends—my right hon. Friend could make it quite clear what his intentions are and what the law is in this respect.

Mr. Rees: I do not think that there is any problem about a constituency in which district council elections axe taking place concerning the sharing of meeting halls and and matters of that nature. The election expense returns will have to be accommodated. I checked with the various political parties. A judgment must be made about the sharing of election expenses. This does not need to be attended to in this legislation. The law on election expenses is quite clear. They have to be shared. That is what matters.

Mr. Greville Janner: One matter that is worrying many people in constituencies concerned with both elections is that the postal ballots will come in presumably in different envelopes. They will then be sorted—those for the general election and those for district council elections. At first, the general election papers only will be counted. This means that those people—I fear there may be many—who have put their vote into the wrong envelope by mistake, which undoubtedly will happen, will effectively be disfranchised. Can my right hon. Friend direct—right hon. and hon. Members may think this is funny, but it is a real worry—that at least the envelopes are opened together and before the count for the general election, so that the votes may be in the right place when they are counted?

Mr. Rees: We are talking about postal votes. The checking on that will have been done a number of days before.

Mr. Janner: Will the opening be done beforehand?

Mr. Rees: Yes, as is usual.
Clause 1 provides that in the circumstances of a dual election on 3 May, the election rules set out in the Representation of the People Acts and the Local Government Acts will be modified as set out in the schedule to the Bill. I shall deal with the modifications one by one.
Clause 2 provides that the parish or community council elections, which were also due to be held on 3 May, should be postponed for three weeks, until 24 May.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I understand that nominations for the community council elections are due to close on Thursday of this week. Can they be frozen at that date, or will these nominations have to be resubmitted?

Mr. Rees: They will be frozen.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman says that the nominations will be frozen, but is he aware that in the instructions sent out to returning officers for special delivery on Saturday morning the returning officers were told that all the nomination papers sent in for parish councils and community councils—which have been checked with great labour—will have to be scrapped and new nomination papers sent out and checked all over again?

Mr. Rees: In that case, I had better check. I am sorry if I have given the wrong information. I shall check to make sure what the situation is. I apologise.

Mr. John Cope: As I understand it, the instructions are as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) says they are. However, it would be much better if they were as the Home Secretary thought they were. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will modify the instructions to the extent that he is right and the instructions are wrong.

Mr. Rees: I was wrong. One of the reasons why we are paying for the community elections is that there will be extra expense involved. They will not be frozen, and nominations will have to be resubmitted. I think that is right. I remember discussing this. The elections will be three weeks later and other people may want to be involved in them. We are postponing the elections, and I think that it is right that it should be done in this way.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it true that there were absolutely no consultations with the association representing parish councils on this matter?

Mr. Rees: I know that consultations took place with many people, but I could not confirm specifically whether they were held with the association representing parish councils. I would have hoped so. Consultations certainly took place, but the decision had to be mine—that is the job of Home Secretary.

Mr. John Farr: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman took his decision very carefully, but will he undertake to look at this decision again after he has heard the debate? One district council may have 43 parish councils, and an average of 15 to 20 nominations for each parish. That represents a lot of the work that has already been completed and will have to be done again. This will be a considerable expense, which many believe could be avoided.

Mr. Rees: Nevertheless, the polling date has been delayed three weeks. I apologise for misleading the House. We must give other people the chance to submit their nominations, if need be. That is what weighed with me when I made my decision. It is a judgment that I am sure is right.
I was making the point, in relation to clause 2, that parish or community council elections are postponed for three weeks. It became clear to me, as I examined the circumstances, that the practical difficulties of holding parliamentary, district and parish elections on the same day were insuperable. As we have just heard, in many districts there can be up to 60 or 70 parishes, each with their separate elections and each unwarded. The ballot papers in an unwarded election can contain 20 or 30 names, with a request that the elector selects a dozen or so of those. We decided that to vote in such an election and to vote for a varying number of candidates on the other papers would make it very complex and would raise many more difficulties at the counting stage. As I have indicated, we have an obligation to pay for the inevitable costs that will be incurred in the postponement

of the parish and district elections, and this we shall do. District councils will shortly be advised of the necessary accounting arrangements.
The central provisions of the Bill are in the schedule. It has been our priority to ensure that the manner in which these two elections should be conducted should be as simple and straightforward as possible for the electorate, and should guarantee the essential privacy and integrity of the ballot.
First, it is essential that the same polling stations should be used for both the parliamentary and the district council elections. In most areas of the country this already applies. Special circumstances, however—such as, for example, a rewarding of a district council's area—may cause a temporary difference in the arrangements. Paragraph 1 to the schedule ensures that it will be an obligation to bring the arrangements into line.
Paragraph 1 also ensures that the acting officer for the parliamentary election is responsible for the appointment of the polling staff, who will be paid by him on a scale of charges authorised by the Treasury. This scale will include a substantial allowance for those who are obliged to supervise the conduct of their elections.
Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that the polling hours at all elections shall be between seven o'clock in the morning and 10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I notice that paragraph 2 is unqualified, but there has been no mention of by-elections. In the city of Birmingham on 3 May. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have dealt with that."] In that case I withdraw my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Home Secretary replies, may I say that he is probably establishing this afternoon a record for the number of interruptions in a Second Reading speech? Most of the questions that have been asked could be put in Committee if hon. Members felt so inclined. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The necessity for many of these interventions arises from


the fact that quite a lot of what we are dealing with is handled by way of regulation and not by Bill. To the best of my knowledge, although the Home Secretary has been sending out these regulations to returning officers, they are not available to Members of Parliament. Therefore, unless we probe the Minister now we cannot know what we shall or shall not want to do in Committee. Would it not be greatly to the convenience of the House if the Home Secretary ordered copies of the regulation to be made available forthwith in the Vote Office? It is a gross inconvenience to the House that he has not done so before the commencement of this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member made a valid point in the earlier part of his submission. I cannot deal with the second part. That is a matter for the Home Secretary.

Mr. Rees: I take the hon. Member's point. These are not regulations, however, but guidance from the Home Office. That does not invalidate the essence of what he is arguing. I shall see whether these items can be put in the Vote Office and in the Library. They are not regulations. If they were I could not just send them out at my own whim. They take the form of guidance that interprets legislation and regulations. I am not in any sense trying to bypass the House of Commons.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I inform the Home Secretary that the guidance notes are available in the Library?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Circulars of that kind normally go into the Library.
Under paragraph 3 new notices of guidance to electors will be drawn up—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is paragraph 2 of the schedule supposed to apply to parliamentary and district council elections, or, as it says, to "all elections", in which case the parish council elections, which are postponed, would also be held between the hours of seven o'clock in the morning and 10 at night? I guess that the Home Secretary does not intend to increase the hours of the parish council elections, but I believe that he has accidentally done so.

Mr. Rees: The Bill is certainly not meant to do that. It applies to the elections on 3 May.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It does not say-so.

Mr. Rees: The argument on that matter can take place later.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that all the polling agents appointed by candidates are to be notified to the parliamentary returning officer rather than to the district election returning officer.
Paragraph 5 makes certain limited changes to the rules governing the issuing of postal ballot papers. It provides in effect that all applications for postal ballot papers for either election will be sent to the same local authority officer and must be sent within the same time scale. Electors will have until 19 April to make such an application. I hope that eligible electors will apply quickly, given the incidence of the Easter break.
Some commentators and some right hon. and hon. Members believe that this creates an anomaly and that certain differences will remain in the qualification for a postal vote between the two elections. Of course, in the majority of circumstances the qualification for an absent vote at a parliamentary and a local government election is the same. There are two broad groups of postal voters. There are those who are entitled to an indefinite postal vote—perhaps because of the nature of their occupation, service or employment, or because of their medical condition. Thre are also those who may apply for a postal vote because of their circumstances at a particular election—because they are temporarily unwell, are absent because of their employment, or are employed by the returning officer for the purposes of the election. These categories operate under the same rules both for parliamentary and local government elections.
The one difference that may cause inconvenience to some of the electors is that at parliamentary elections an elector who is no longer residing at his qualifying address and has moved to an address in another county electoral division, or, in a rural area, to another parish, also qualifies.
With the district council election, Parliament determined that there should be no


absent voting facilities for local government electors who had moved. To make a change to bring these entitlements into line would be administratively neat, but I concluded that to make such a change would not be a mere matter of administration but would be a fundamental change in the eligibility for postal votes for local government elections.
This is the sort of matter on which a Government should act only after full consultation, perhaps in a Speaker's Conference on electoral law. In the Bill we have concentrated only on those matters that are essential. Thus we are also not making any change to entitle district council candidates to share the free postal facilities for parliamentary candidates. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that matter when we come to the appropriate amendment in Committee. I believe it to be an example of a change which is not essential for these elections.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 deal with the important question of ballot papers. It will assist the House if I spell out fully the arrangements I have made in the light of consultation with the major political parties and with the printing and paper making industries. In making these arrangements, I was anxious that there should be no confusion in the minds of the electorate as to which ballot paper refers to which election. I was equally anxious to make it easy for sorters, many of whom usually do the work in the evening after a full day at their normal work, to distinguish between the two ballot papers so that they can put each in their appropriate piles for eventual counting.
We have had to move quickly on this matter over the weekend and this morning, and copies of what I propose will be available in the Vote Office by five o'clock. I have decided that each ballot paper should have at the top a clear statement in bold capital letters of the election to which it relates. It will state "Parliamentary election" or "District council election" at the top of the paper. Below that there will appear a statement of the number of candidates for whom the elec-for may vote—

Mr. English: It says "small capitals" here in the Bill.

Mr. Rees: Bold.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting on the top of the ballot paper the district council to which the election is taking place? My constituency may be unique. We have district council elections for six different councils—Middlesbrough, Stockton, Richmond, Hambleton, Teesdale and Harrogate. The counts will be some 80 miles apart. If we get the ballot papers mixed up in the course of sorting for six district councils, we shall get into the devil of a mess. The Home Secretary ought to consider putting the name of the district at the top of the ballot paper. Sorting for six separate districts will be an impossible task.

Mr. Rees: This is a point that I have not considered for the district elections. I am advised that it will appear on the reverse of the ballot paper, but may I look into that?

Mr. English: Not on the front at all?

Mr. Rees: Mr. Speaker, may I—

Mr. English: In the Bill it says "On the front".

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) realise that he cannot have a conversation with the Member who is addressing the House whilst he remains seated?

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are becoming a little confused because the Secretary of State's brief clearly does not conform to the Bill before us, which says:
On the front of every ballot paper there shall be printed at the top, in small capitals"—
not "bold capitals", and so on.

Mr. Speaker: We may well be confused, but that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman can conduct a discussion while he is sitting down when someone else is addressing the House.

Mr. Rees: There is no need for confusion. The front of the ballot papers make abundantly clear which is for the parliamentary elections and which for district council elections. Details are given on the back of the paper in the district council elections.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not wish to add to the confusion, but the right hon. Gentleman said that these ballot papers would be on display in the Vote Office. Are the papers which he is holding up actual copies? From where I am sitting they look very similar, and there does not appear to be a difference in colour. Surely the difference in colour should be considerable.

Mr. Rees: I shall come to that in a moment. I have endeavoured to give way as much as possible but if hon. Gentlemen make a decision at 20 yards' distance, without the aid of binoculars, we shall have a curious example of shortsightedness which shows itself in other places. I am trying to be helpful. Each ballot paper will have the statement at the top. Below that statement there will be a list of the candidates for whom an elector may vote. In Wales these headings will be bilingual. Except for that, the parliamentary ballot paper will retain the traditional form, colour and shape with which we are familiar.
The district council ballot paper will be printed on a different coloured paper. We consulted a doctor on this matter, as I thought that there might be questions about colour blindness. There may be people who are not only shortsighted but colour blind, so I checked that the colour that I had chosen was such that nobody could raise an argument about colour blindness. After consultation, I decided that there should be a national standard colour for the district council ballot paper. The colour that I have chosen is light grey. The manufacturers have christened it "election grey" and samples will be available for inspection.
I thought that hon. Members would agree that this colour is easily distinguishable. It is not so dark as to make it difficult to read either the description of the candidates or the cross made by the voters. Arrangements are in hand to distribute this paper nationally so that all local printers have the same coloured paper in good time.
The district council ballot paper will have a large border of three black lines round the names on the front. They will be easy to see and will also appear on the back. These will constitute a distinguishing mark both for the sorters and for the voters. They may prove parti-

cularly useful in poor light—and to people looking over 20-yards' distance—whereas an otherwise clear distinction between the white and the grey may be less obvious.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far, but nowhere in the debate has reference been made to borough council elections. Can I take it that when he mentions district councils he also means borough councils?

Mr. Rees: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that in poor light—and most of us agree that many polling booths are in poor light—people with bad sight will be able to distinguish the papers? I believe that the papers require a much bolder distinction than the one that he proposes.

Mr. Rees: I have looked at the matter carefully. I believe that they will be distinguishable. The papers will be easy to sort. I do not believe that there is a problem, and I told the House so when I considered this matter last Friday. Let us suppose that the ballot paper was to be pink or red or blue or one of any of the colours under which the Liberal Party stands in different parts of the country. I can imagine all the interruptions that we would have had. I felt that grey, with the lines, was the best choice.
The Bill provides that the same ballot boxes will be used in both elections. There is no difficulty here. All acting returning officers are now being asked, on the basis of a formula given to them by my Department, to calculate how many ballot boxes they need. They have been told to provide a standard size ballot box for every 1,500 registered voters. This is big enough for most polling stations. I am told that the boxes can hold up to 2,500 papers but that the most they will need to take is 2,000. Most areas have spare boxes and, since Northern Ireland, Scotland and London have surplus ballot boxes, necessary arrangements will be made to ensure that enough ballot boxes are available in the right places.
When I considered this matter some weeks ago, I considered the production of boxes. We need 45,000 boxes for the whole country and we considered how many boxes our sole supplier made. The man who makes them appeared on television. It is surprising how many people, since


seeing the wrong information given on that programme, said that they could also make ballot boxes. That shows that television is at least a good advertiser, even though on this occasion the wrong information was given.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if a ballot paper has already been issued to a person claiming to be the elector in a parliamentary election, when a second claim is made, a pink paper is normally issued. Will the duplicate paper for the district council elections also be pink, or will another colour be used so that duplicate parliamentary and district council papers will not both be pink?

Mr. Rees: At this point I say "Help". It is a valid point, and I shall find out. Whoever thought of pink showed great perception. I shall consider the matter.

Mr. David Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the peculiar problem that exists in the London borough of Camden, where there will be two council by-elections on that day? Has he given any thought to that? I have heard what he said, but I do not think that it covers this situation. The same confusion will exist there for voters as exists in district council elections elsewhere.

Mr. Rees: I have not catered for that situation in the Bill. If there are by-elections in other areas, sufficient ballot papers are available. Such by-elections could be organised in another room in the same building, or wherever is appropriate. My job is to ensure that these two elections can take place on the same day. I do not believe that we should amend the Bill to cover a handful of places where by-elections are taking place.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is his job to ensure that the two elections take place on the same day. He is struggling manfully to answer all these questions about the manifold difficulties, but why has he not yet addressed himself to the fundamental point? Parish council elections have been postponed until 24 May. Why could not the district council elections also be postponed until then?

Mr. Rees: That is a matter for the district councils. I have heard interesting

suggestions today about how that could be done. My national control involves parish council and community council elections generally. By-elections are things that are decided locally.

Mr. Cormack: District councillors in many parts of the country are worried about the dual election. The Association of District Councils believes that there is very real national concern. Why were the district council elections not put off until 24 May?

Mr. Rees: We had to make a judgment. I have not heard many complaints. I am told that there will be a high turnout for the local elections and that the present arrangements are right.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the schedule describe the arrangements for the close of polling and the counting of votes. I shall describe the arrangements step by step. Each ballot box will contain both parliamentary and district council papers. All the papers will be sent initially for the parliamentary count. At that stage the parliamentary returning officer will divide the papers between parliamentary and district votes, keeping the district papers separate by wards and tallying the numbers against the ballot paper accounts.
The parliamentary returning officer will then proceed to the parliamentary election count. I recognise that the count may commence and conclude a little later than has been the practice at recent elections. The district council ballot papers will be sent, if necessary, to the district council returning officer. Each box will be labelled with a description of the area to which the ballot papers in it relate.
The returning officer will then check that he has the right number of ballot papers, count the votes, and declare his results. Under the normal rules he is entitled to commence his count as soon as practicable. It is clearly sensible that there should be local discretion. This is fully in accordance with the normal practice. All the necessary arrangements to make the administration of the general election and local elections a success have been taken.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will handle the Bill. As it is an important Bill I felt that I should move the Second Reading. I have to attend a number of important meetings on other


matters and I hope that the House will excuse me if I am not in the House for the Committee stage.

Mr. Peter Emery: I compliment the Secretary of State on the number of times that he has given way. I waited until the end of his speech so that I did not interrupt him on a matter that he intended to cover.
Could a practice which would not be normal in a general election be allowed in the counting of votes because of the duality of proving the numbers? Normally, when the count starts in a general election the ballot boxes are proved and one proceeds through to the count until the result is announced. However, occasionally when there is a small majority, a recount is postponed until the next day.
It has been suggested to me that it will be in order for the returning officer to prove both lots of papers and then postpone the rest of the parliamentary count until the following day. In other words, there could be two bites at the parliamentary count.
I hope that that will not be necessary. Can the Home Secretary say whether the law will allow that? Does he agree that it should be avoided where possible? I hope that he agrees that in such circumstances it would be better to do the whole count the next day.

Mr. Rees: I shall have that checked. I understand that the count could be postponed to the following day. There is no problem of storage, because the votes would be packaged. It would be a local decision. However, I shall check the situation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could deal with another important matter. What happens in the event of a recount? We must bear in mind that the alleged district council votes will be sent to another returning officer's area. In the event of a recount, will those votes be returned so that they can be examined with what is believed to be the totality of the parliamentary votes, to check whether any parliamentary votes have inadvertently been sent out in the district council boxes? If that is not done there will be a completely different type of recount.

For the first time all the votes cast will no longer be liable to checking in a recount.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member is correct about recounts. What will be different is the sorting out of the votes between the general election and the others. A recount will take place as before, and it will not involve the district council papers.

Sir Timothy Kitson: There are six different districts in my constituency.

Mr. English: The hon. Member has no need to worry about a recount.

Sir T. Kitson: I am talking about the district elections. If some of the ballot papers inadvertently are sent to another district, there should be some communication before the results are declared. Two votes for Harrogate might go to Stockton, two votes for Cleveland might go to Northallerton and two from Richmond to Stockton or Middlesbrough. I should like the fears on this matter to be allayed.

Mr. Rees: I shall consider that matter. It is not a problem that arises in the parliamentary election.

Mr. Cormack: I believe that such a situation could arise in the parliamentary election. Many constituencies have small majorities. What happens when district council votes have been returned to a foreign district and a recount is demanded? Will the boxes be sent back, or will they be held until after the recount?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that there is a problem. There are to be two sets of different papers, which will be sorted out on the night. I have been told that there is nothing to stop the returning officers from telephoning each other. The sorting out and validation of parlamentary election papers will be done on the night. I do not think that there will be a problem.
I have tried to answer many questions during a most unusual Second Reading speech. I hope that the House has an interesting Committee stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Morton): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel).

4.38 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the details of the Bill, with the assistance of various visual aids. There are considerable problems involved in making the Bill work—if it can be made to work—and to ensure smooth and efficiently operated elections.
The Bill is not of our choice. We should have preferred a general election on 26 April. However, that was said to be impossible. I always welcome any measure which will ensure a high turnout, but if jamming the elections together causes real electoral confusion that is a high price to pay in a democracy. We must examine the matter with care.
The weekend press was full of worries and anxieties expressed with varying degrees of intensity by local authority officials. One of the most graphic was that which was quoted on Saturday by a North Yorkshire official who described the elections as
The biggest potential cock-up I have seen in 25 years in local government.
I hope that it will not be as bad as that. We must take steps to ensure that it is not, although, when I was reflecting on the Bill, it passed through my mind that it would be characteristic of this Government to bow out in one final, glorious Home Office muddle. It is our duty to take as many steps as we can within the framework of the legislation to prevent that. We wanted an election on 26 April, but 3 May has been put upon us and we must seek to minimise the confusion, which could otherwise be considerable, and get matters right.
I wish to ask a number of questions and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friend have many more to put to the Minister. Some can be dealt with in Committee, but many need to be answered and clarified before we can get to a sensible Committee stage.
I start by declaring a personal interest in a small matter. It concerns no one except myself and it is simply that as a result of the Bill my constituency will not, on this occasion, be the first to be declared to the nation on election night. Presumably the honour will go to a metropolitan constituency that does not have district elections.
I turn to the major and serious issues before us. The biggest worry in the minds of many of my hon. Friends is the question of single ballot boxes containing voting slips for both the district council and the general elections. The Home Secretary waved before us the two separate voting slips. I was glad to see that the black lined edges will be on the outside of the paper as well as the inside. I share the view of some that, although grey may have been the most economical colour to produce at short notice, there could be difficulties between grey and white. We shall be dealing with millions of votes, with tens of thousands in many individual constituencies, and there is great pressure and tenseness on the night. In those circumstances, there will be difficulty in trying to sort out the piles of grey paper and white paper that spill out of a single box.
If that process cannot be done swiftly, we are producing a counting system which could go on well into the night and the following day. If it were necessary to start unfolding the voting slips before we could discover whether they were to be counted in the parliamentary or district council elections, we would be in serious mess.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be fairer to those who are to do the counting, many of whom will have been on duty since 7 a.m., if the general election counts took place on the Friday and the district council counts on the Saturday?

Mr. Howell: That is a matter for the returning officers to decide, but I accept that there will be serious pressures on those organising the count and on the returning officers.
It is vital that it should be easy to distinguish between the two sorts of ballot paper when the votes are tipped out of the ballot box. If there is any failure there, we shall be heading for serious difficulties. The grey pieces of paper will be put aside and, I understand, repackaged and, in due course, either counted on the spot or shunted off around the country to the right place for the district council count.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Home Secretary was speaking, I asked for


copies of the circular covering many of the details not given in the Bill to be made available for hon. Members in the Vote Office. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were available in the Library. I have just been to the Library to get a copy and was told that there are no copies there.
May I ask that in order to avoid this nonsense, and so that the House may know what it is debating, the Home Office should be required to put copies of the circular in the Vote Office? Before you were in the chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State referred to the document, and it ought therefore to be laid on the Table of the House and made available in the Vote Office. May I further ask that the debate be adjourned until the circular is available to hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's observations will have been noted in quarters other than the Chair. None of the matters that he raised is for the Chair except the last point about the adjournment of the debate. My answer to the request is "No".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was no point of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a point of order. It is that when a Minister quotes from an official document he has to lay it on the Table of the House. If he refers to such a document, it is customary for him to lay it on the Table.
Since the Home Secretary misinformed the House by saying that the document was available in the Library when it was not, it should be made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. That is crucial as it is proposed that the House should go straight from Second Reading to the Committee stage and we must know the detail of the circular before we can proceed even to a proper Second Reading debate. Immediately after Second Reading, it may be necessary to submit manuscript amendments to the Chair. We shall be too late if we wait for the Committee stage.
It is more than a discourtesy for the circular not to be available. The House is utterly frustrated from doing its job if it cannot have available copies of the circular to returning officers which covers so many material matters, including, for instance, the question of the returning officer's mark, without which a ballot paper can be challenged before the courts. That and a number of other matters do not appear anywhere in the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I put the record straight? It was I who said that copies of the circular were available in the Library. It may be that the copy that I got from the Library was the last one available. I do not want the information that I gave to be wrongly ascribed to the Home Secretary.
However, I support the representations of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I went to the Vote Office first and, when I discovered that no copies were available there, I was directed to the Library. It is vital that hon. Members should see copies of the circular. I realise that they were available only some time after 3 p.m. when they had been issued. Many of the matters that we are discussing are covered in the circular.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what an hon. Member who has had the opportunity to read the circular has told the House, may I again put a plea to you to suspend the sitting until copies of the circular can be placed in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may have them for use in the debate and so that the House may conduct its business properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the Minister of State able to assist the House?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Circulars are issued in every election for the guidance of returning officers. They are not regulations. We are debating the regulations laid down in the schedule to the Bill.
We have made the circular available in the Library as a matter of courtesy, but


such circulars are issued at every election without copies being provided in the Library. I shall see whether additional copies can be made available. We recognise that there are difficulties, not least being the fact that the debate is going on, but it is perfectly proper for us to conduct it on the basis of the Bill as printed.

Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears from what the Minister has said that a clear requirement on the Government has arisen. The Minister has said that a copy has been available in the Library. However, we know from what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that the copy is no longer available in the Library, because it is in the hon. Gentleman's hands. Will the Minister undertake forthwith to make arrangements through the necessary instructions for a plentiful supply of further copies to be made available immediately, so that my hon. Friends may leave the Chamber, obtain them and ascertain the contents of the documents and their relevance to the debate?

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some Opposition Members are suggesting that we waste time by suspending the sitting. If there is a reason for a pause in our consideration of the Bill, there are several other items on the Order Paper with which we could proceed.

Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We are dealing with an extremely important Bill. It is introducing a revolutionary change in our electoral practice. The piece of information with which we are concerned is vital to a proper understanding of what the Government have in mind. Surely a brief suspension of the sitting to enable copies to be circulated to those who are interested in the debate would be entirely proper.

Mr. John: I shall arrange for photostat copies to be circularised. I see no reason why the debate should be suspended. I accept what the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said. Copies will be photostatted and circularised for the convenience and information of hon. Members.

Mr. Howell: I think that I was making a speech before the points of order began. If I may, I shall return to it. I hope that we may proceed with the debate and that the necessary documents will be provided as soon as possible.
I was referring to the situation that will arise when the grey voting slips have been pushed aside and put back into the ballot boxes, awaiting either a count in the hall where the parliamentary count is taking place or to be shipped to the count relevant to the district to which they belong.

Mr. Tony Durant: It is the normal custom to wait until the end of a count before a candidate may ask for a recount or re-examination. Perhaps it will be suggested to the Home Office that the candidate or agent be permitted to check the bundles before they are despatched somewhere else.

Mr. Howell: Some of my hon. Friends referred to recounts. Consideration must be given to whether the bundles should be allowed to leave the hall until it has been ascertained whether a recount is sought. I do not know whether that is intended. I do not know whether it appears in the guidance notes that we have not seen. There is nothing about it in the Bill. The Minister should give his attention to that. If it is not considered, further difficulties could arise in addition to the difficulties that will arise in any event.

Mr. Cope: A problem arises if there is likely to be a recount in the district election. It is my understanding of the Bill that the candidates and their agents in district council elections will not be present at the verification. There is no provision for the candidates or agents in the district council elections to be present at a parliamentary count unless they are present in some other capacity. I realise that the Bill may be modified by amendment, but that is how it stands.

Mr. Howell: That is another matter that I hope the Minister will note.
I was about to turn my attention to those who attend the parliamentary counts. A number of representations have already been received. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), the Association of District Councils explains that it is worried about the problems that


may surround paragraph 11 of the schedule involving the requirement on the returning officer to verify.
The returning officer is required to verify both the ballot papers for the parliamentary election and the papers for the district council election. The association rightly states that there should be some flexibility in the arrangements, and if parliamentary returning officers prefer to defer verification of the district council ballot papers until the following day they should be allowed to do so. I do not know whether the splitting of the verification function is possible under the Bill. If returning officers find that that is the least inconvenient way to organise matters, I urge that consideration be given to that part of the operation.
The Home Secretary mentioned the difficulty of different qualifications arising in some circumstances in the facilities for absent voters for parliamentary elections and the lack of facilities for such voters in district elections. That is an awkward development. I take the right hon. Gentleman's argument that if a change were to be made we should be plunging into changes in our electoral law. However, that is what the Bill is doing anyway. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the proposition that the qualification should be harmonised.
Some organisational difficulties have been brought to my attention. I have no doubt that many more have been brought to my right hon. Friend's attention. Polling cards for district elections have already been printed. They bear the wrong time. Printed on them is the nine o'clock closure time. Is the Minister able to reassure us that the cards still have validity even though the time on them is wrong? Have they all to be changed? Will the parliamentary election card suffice for both elections? Some reassurance made from the Government Dispatch Box on that complexity would be in order. If we receive no assurance, there will be those who have doubts about the timing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) talked about timing and the disparity between times for voting in by-elections in London that happen to be taking place on 3 May and a general election that is taking place on the same day. I have some sympathy

when my hon. Friend paints a picture of potential voters arriving to cast their votes at five past nine in the evening and finding that they are ruled out from voting in the local elections. That is an absurdity among many absurdities and it deserves some re-examination and thought by the Minister and the Home Secretary before we go much further with the Bill.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend will remember the Home Secretary chiding me for not being able to see the difference between the two ballot papers when he held them at the Dispatch Box. I have now had the opportunity to examine them closely. In artificial light they are not all that different. I am sure that many old people will experience considerable difficulty distinguishing one from the other. Is my hon. Friend aware that the greatest snag arising from the exercise is that on the top of the parliamentary ballot paper the voter is told that he is entitled to one vote and on the local election paper he is told that he is entitled to two votes, or whatever the number may be? That advice is in type that is by no means heavy enough, especially for elderly people. Voters may have difficulty in distinguishing how many votes they have.

Mr. Howell: I hope that the Minister will note my hon. Friend's contribution. He has the advantage of me, as he has seen the two pieces of paper. I have not seen them, except when they were waved around in the hand of the Home Secretary 8 feet or 10 feet away from me. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the similarity of colour. I realise that there are difficulties about choosing another colour. Pink is difficult, for political reasons, and because of the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Blue is difficult, for political reasons. I suppose that lavender would be considered in thoroughly bad taste. We are left with a small range of colours.
I suggest that these are serious worries. I have heard it said outside the House that unless the grey is a firm and darkish colour, in many instances we shall have confusion in bad light at the count. Once there is confusion about which papers belong where, the smooth working of the elections will be seriously jeopardised.

Mr. Nick Budgen: It may be that I am anticipating my hon. Friend, but I ask him to deal with the question why the district elections cannot be postponed. So far those contributing to the debate have been pointing either to the difficulties of having the two sets of election together or to ways in which difficulties may be mitigated. So far no one has addressed his mind to the postponement of the district elections.

Mr. Howell: To some extent my hon. Friend is anticipating me. He is also commenting on a view with which I began my few remarks. That is not a satisfactory situation. The Opposition wish to postpone the district elections—they have made that clear—but not because of the question of a higher or lower turnout. That should be beyond argument. We want as many votes as possible at all democratic elections. However, there is a serious prospect of disorder. That is emphasised and underlined by the debate this afternoon, the difficulties to which we have referred and the many questions that we have put to the Home Secretary.
The Government argue that considerable expenditure on organisation has been incurred. That will give rise to further expenditure. Expenditure has been incurred in setting in motion the wheels of the district elections to be held on 3 May. Notices of election have been posted all over the country. Candidates have prepared and have had printed their election literature. That is my understanding of the position. It may be said that that also applies to parish councils. I gather from the local authority council which organises parish councils that 150,000 leaflets and 10,000 posters have been printed urging people to vote in the parish council elections on 3 May. There are difficulties there.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House what kind of expenditure we are talking about? In my short experience, I have found that if the Government want to do something, expenditure is never a problem. On the other hand, if they do not want to do something, even the tiniest expenditure means a vast increase in the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Howell: These points may be fairly put to the Minister. It is not for me to

defend a Bill that I do not like and propositions and arrangements that lead to confusion.

Mr. Cormack: Does not my hon. Friend concede that the Government have already said that they will spent a great deal of money on press and television advertising to explain all the confusions with which we have been dealing? We must set against the money spent on district council elections the money that will be spent explaining this ridiculous Bill.

Mr. Howell: I am sure that the Minister will take note of that as well. Whether that is also the view of those who are getting geared up and involved in the district council elections, I do not know. My hon. Friend has spoken to people who hold their view. There is also the commitment of effort and organisation on election literature that rises above cost and reimbursement by the Government. It means that the wheels have been rotated too often and are too far in motion to be stopped. We should like more reassurance from the Minister on the question whether the costs of postponing the district elections would be of the size that the Government claimed. It is right to press for satisfaction on that point.
I am almost rivalling the Home Secretary in the length of my speech, plus interruptions, although not all of them were caused by my comments at the Dispatch Box.
Orderly elections are in everybody's interests in a free country. We are determined, as we made clear earlier, to protect the conduct of these elections against threats of terror and violence. We shall see that there is no question of terrorism interrupting the orderly conduct of these elections. It is also our duty to protect our elections from administrative bungling and complexity. For those reasons I remain far from convinced that the Bill provides the best arrangements. Changes will be needed both in the guidance and regulations. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will press for them. Those matters must be taken carefully into account.
At the end of the day, as we must make the elections work, I advise my hon. Friends at Second Reading that the Bill should go forward to Committee and that they should not oppose it, though I fully understand many of the worries


that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill to facilitate the holding of Parliamentary elections on the date laid down for the holding of district council elections which fails to postpone the said district council elections.
I should have thought from the comments from the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that it was apparent to those listening to the debate that to hold the district council elections and the general election on the same day was far from satisfactory. If the Government cannot accept the amendment, I hope that at least the Opposition Front Bench will support it.
The reason for tabling the amendment is that parliamentary and district council elections should not be held on the same day, and not in such a rush as has been decided. My view is that the matter has been rushed. It has not been properly thought through. We know full well from the comments made so far that the instructions to returning officers are not readily available to Members of Parliament. I suggest that they were probably not available to the local authorities until this morning. A vast number of problems will arise. I do not think that there will be any time in which to sort them out. In the long run we may organise elections whereby we vote on a large number of matters on the same day. However, we have neither the facilities nor the machinery to do so at present. I agree with the remarks made about the identification of the ballot papers. There will be problems.
For instance, the Government lost a vital Division by one vote last week. The next Government may well be elected on just such a majority. It may depend on one vote that goes missing between Harrogate and Scunthorpe, by the sound of it. I know of two instances in elections—other hon. Members may have similar tales to tell—where votes have been wrongly counted. The first time I stood for the Isle of Wight county council I was told that I was in by 25 votes. The result

was put up on the notice board. I knew that I had won by more votes. After my insistence that the bundles should be looked through, I found that I had been elected by 125 votes. One bundle went into the wrong lot.
I do not want to tell tales out of school. The general election of 1970 went against me. After the votes had been announced in the hall, another 35 votes for the Labour candidate were found on the floor. That put me into third place. I spotted those votes. These things happen. The result given inside the hall differed from that given outside. We know thaht errors occur. Therefore, it is desperately important that we should get the matter right.
We all agree that this general election will be very important. I agree with the Leader of the Oppositon that this will probably be the most vital election since the war. We should concentrate our attention on it. The integrity of the district elections must also be maintained. This can be achieved only by holding the elections on different dates. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I suggest a three-week postponement. If we can put off the parish elections, why not put off the district elections? We are playing a pretty poor trick on the associations of local councils.
I should like to quote from the newsletter of the Bembridge parish council, which is in my constituency. It goes to great lengths to interest people in parish affairs. There is a notice about the annual parish meeting. It says:
A new Parish council will be elected on 3 May 1979.
It also says "Do come and vote." All that will be thrown overboard. The nominations will be null and void. I cannot understand why those people cannot be allowed to stand. Shall we compensate these people, who work on a shoestring anyway, for the expense of the material they have used? That is not provided for in the Bill. That is another good reason for throwing out this provision. I have not yet heard from the Home Secretary or from the hon. Member for Guild-ford why it is impossible to put off these elections for three weeks. Unless we get an explanation, and a satisfactory one at that—

Mr. Roger Moate: Can the hon. Gentleman advise as to the consequences of his amendment being accepted by the House? Would it, in practice, mean that we could not have a general election on 3 May, as presumably we should need some other mechanism to secure the holding of the district council elections?

Mr. Ross: The effect of the amendment, unless it is wrongly drafted, would be that the district council elections would be held on the same day as the parish council elections—in other words, three weeks later than 3 May. That is what is intended.

Mr. Cormack: Perhaps, as I have an amendment on the Order Paper in a similar sense, the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that, although nothing can now change the date of the general election, because the Royal Proclamation has been made, if his extremely moderate reasoned amendment were to be passed we should not have all the welter of confusion that we have talked about this afternoon.

Mr. Ross: It is certainly not my wish—I know it is not possible, anyway—to try to change the date of the general election. There are certain pieces of legislation, including tomorrow's financial business, which have to be got through, and, with Easter falling in the middle of the month, probably it would have been rushing matters too much to hold the general election on 26 April. From my point of view, 3 May is perfectly satisfactory as the date for the general election. What my hon. Friends and I are trying to show is that what is possible for the parish council elections should be equally possible for the district council elections. Why cannot we do the two things at once? I hope that other hon. Members who agree with me will support my amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is one point on which I should like to have clarification from the hon. Gentleman. If the House were to pass his reasoned amendment, the Bill would fall.

Mr. Ross: That is right.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would the result of the Bill falling be that the

general election could not be held on 3 May—

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —or that the district elections could not be held? It is not self-evident to the House. Which of the two events would cease to happen if the Bill fell? Would it mean that the general election could not be held on 3 May or that the district council elections could not be held on 3 May? The hon. Gentleman's amendment has much to commend it—certainly to me—but I want to know what would be the effect of voting for it.

Mr. Ross: I do not have the benefit of having someone in the Box to give me legal advice. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on these subjects, probably knows the answer already, but my advice is that it would mean that the district council elections would not be held. There has already been a Royal Proclamation, and the general election must go ahead.

Mr. Greville Janner: Would not the effect of passing the amendment be twofold? First, the district council elections could not be held together with the general election and, second, the parish and community elections would have to be held on the same day, because the second purpose of the Bill is to postpone the parish and community elections, which would otherwise have been held on the same day.

Mr. Ross: I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation is absolutely correct.

Mr. Janner: If that is right, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the confusion that he is endeavouring to avoid by his amendment would be perpetrated in exactly the same way but at different elections?

Mr. Ross: I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we might then get the Government to think again and produce a sensible Bill. After all, we shall be here for another two days. Let us be quite clear that the announcement of the whole of this arrangement was most unsatisfactory. First, the Home Secretary was not intending to make a statement to the House. Secondly, it was indicated that he would make a statement after the Independent


Broadcasting Authority Bill had gone through. In the event, the Home Secretary's statement was made three-quarters of the way through, when many of us who were looking for the opportunity to question him last Thursday were engaged on other matters outside.
The way in which this Bill has been introduced has been thoroughly disgraceful. It will certainly work against democracy in local elections in this country. It will go right against the interests of the independent members, many of whom serve with distinction on rural councils in our country. They will suffer as a result of this Bill. The whole idea behind the Bill is that it is believed by the Government Front Bench that it will help the Labour Party to get a bigger vote in the local elections. That is the reason behind it, and we know it. I hope that other hon. Members who want to uphold democracy in this country will support my amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it your wish, for the convenience of the House, that we should henceforth debate both the amendment and the substantive motion, or that we should debate the amendment that is now before the House and then have another debate on the substantive motion? We need to know what is in your mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Both should be debated together.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I should simply like to ask the Minister why this Bill is 60 years late. These circumstances could not have arisen in this form before 1918. Before 1918, parliamentary elections had to be held, within certain prescribed and customary rules, a month after the writ was received, and that was at different times in different localities. The elections, in other words, were spread over a period of nearly two months. Then from 1918 parliamentary elections—I think this was as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1918—had to be held on a single day, the same day, in all constituencies.
Obviously, in so far as similar provisions apply in various Acts relating to local government, the possibility then

arose of the two events occurring on the same day. It is well known and an axiom of all English constitutional law—and, I would have suggested, of Scottish constitutional law and Northern Irish constitutional law as well—that the Crown can dissolve Parliament at any time and summon another one for any date. There is no dispute about this. The only limitation upon that is that Parliament will be dissolved after the expiration of five years if the Crown fails to do it.
It is equally true that nowadays the Crown does not do it of its own volition but does it on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the day. All these things have been known for centuries. They are not new. What was new in 1918 was that for the first time parliamentary elections had to be held on one day. The provisions for various types of authority—county boroughs, county councils, urban district councils, rural district councils and parish councils—differed according to the different local authorities, but they all had prescribed dates upon which elections were due to occur. Clearly, it could hardly be argued that, because some Act of Parliament said that there had to be a county council election somewhere in the United Kingdom on a particular day, that would therefore stop a parliamentary election from being held. As, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there is really no provision in law saying that there cannot be two elections on the same day. It must, I should have thought, be axiomatic that, if the Crown summons Parliament—something which it has been doing since 1236—for a particular date, the essential procedure must follow.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary told the House earlier today that by 5 p.m. copies of the ballot papers would be available in the Vote Office—not that he hoped that they would but that they would. It is now 5.19 p.m., and they are not available in the Vote Office, contrary to the assurance given to the House by the Home Secretary. May we ask the Minister to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to tell us what on earth has happened, and when the Home Secretary's assurances to the House of Commons are to be honoured? The House should not be expected to put up with sheer incompetence of this sort on a day when we are


being invited to take the Committee stage of a Bill immediately after Second Reading.

Mr. English: I am trying to explain that the incompetence goes much further back—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping for some response from you or the Government on what the House has been told about a paper from which the Home Secretary quoted. An official paper from which the Home Secretary quotes in debate must be laid on the Table of the House and be available in the Vote Office. I ask you to protect the House on this matter.

Mr. John: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it was no disrespect to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) got up and immediately resumed his speech before I could intervene. I am having inquiries made. So far as I know, the papers are being brought here. I hope that the House will forbear. As soon as I receive news, I shall communicate it to the House. As soon as the papers are received, they will not only be made available in the Vote Office but distributed, via the usual channels, to hon. Members who are in the Chamber so as to minimise the inconvenience.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to order that a note be made in the Journal of the House that a paper from which the Home Secretary quoted was not laid on the Table, contrary to the rules of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the rules do not say that the paper has to be laid instantly. However, I notice that is about to be done. In view of the unusual circumstances, and as we have had an assurance from the Minister, perhaps we can now proceed.

Mr. English: I hope that it will be clear that the Home Office—I mean the Home Office under every successive Government since 1918—has only itself to blame for all the carping and criticism that it is now getting from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Successive Bills have been laid before the House of Commons and before another place—not always by the Home Office; in some instances by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or whatever it may have been called, now the Department of the Environment—and all of them, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, have envisaged that two elections could take place on the same day. Yet none has made any special provision for that eventuality.
Presumably one of the problems is that there are not enough ballot boxes and that not enough can be made in the time available. If so, who is responsible for the public expenditure by local authorities on this issue? The Home Office pays for parliamentary elections. It could have ensured that there was always enough provision for the possibility that the Crown, on the advice of the Cabinet of the day, would want an election on any given reasonable day, whether a local election day or not. Nothing has been done until the last minute.
My right hon. Friend has been very honest in these matters and told us how this problem arose. He said last week that it has arisen because some people—in my view silly people—had the view—this was a view originally taken by those interested in the European elections—that the European elections should take place on the same day as some other election, be it a local or a parliamentary election. That view came from people like those who felt that there would not be a high poll in the referendum on our entry into Europe. Indeed, then, guidance to returning officers was intentionally fiddled so that they would declare a turnout which was on a slightly different basis from the one that had hitherto been used for a parliamentary election turnout.
However, that is by the by. The people who thought in that way were wrong. The people of this country turned out to vote in the referendum just as, in my view, they will turn out on 7 June to vote in the European elections. The idea was that there would be a low poll and that therefore it must be combined with something else to ensure a high poll. I do not know whether that idea was taken up by Conservative Central Office, but the Opposition Front Bench are certainly not opposing this Bill. However, that idea was certainly taken up in Transport House, which said "What


a lovely idea. We can do it with other elections, too." We then have this Bill popping up at the last moment after 60 years in which the possibility was known to exist.
It is about 13 years since I asked why the Home Office had not revised the Hackney Carriage Acts for 130 years at that time. It is now rather more. It is still necessary, if a taxi is towed away, to feed hay to the horses. The Home Office has a habit of not bothering to look at legislation and of assuming that things will go away and nothing will happen if it does not bother about them until the last moment when it may be necessary.
Even now this legislation—perhaps it is a good thing in the light of the extraordinary speed with which it is being rushed through—states that it relates solely to this circumstance. If it happens again, we shall need new legislation—no doubt produced at the last moment. As the Crown has the undoubted right to dissolve Parliament and to summon another—indeed, it is devoutly to be wished that it should—may we eventually have some permanent provision about what should happen if the election date for a new Parliament subsequent to the next one falls on the same date as some other election in the United Kingdom? As has been made plain, not all elections fall on the same date. Why should this matter be ignored for 60 years and suddenly be considered at the last moment?
That is what I meant when I said that it was an illustration of what was wrong with the British system of government. In that time—I think it is fair to say that since 1918 we have not had a Liberal Government, although we had a Liberal Prime Minister for four years in that period—

Mr. Cormack: Seven years.

Mr. English: I forget the date when Lloyd George ceased to be Prime Minister. We have certainly had both Conservative and Labour Governments and we have had Coalition Governments as well in that period. But not once has anyone thought of providing for this eventuality until a month before the necessity for it arose. That is not the way to run a country. That is what is wrong with the basic system of government. In this instance the Department for which the Home Secretary is currently responsible

but for which before and after him other Home Secretaries have been and will be technically responsible failed to advise him and them; they were, are and perhaps will be equally ill served.
There was a case for having those elections on 7 June, side by side with the European elections. There was a case for having all local elections on 24 May. But there is no case for isolating the parish council elections between the general election and the European elections, when party workers of all persuasions will be exhausted, to say the least. There will be a minimal turnout in many areas because of this. The local councils association is very disturbed. I recently heard its leader on the radio asking why we could not have all the local elections on the same day, and saying that if necessary it should be 7 June, the same as the European elections.
I do not mind very much whether the local elections are on 24 May or 7 June. There is a good case for either date. I shall be more than happy to support the suggestion implicit in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for the Committee stage that 24 May should be the day. I am very concerned about the confusion that will ensue from the present arrangements.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I support most enthusiastically the amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). The Home Secretary said that he wanted to make the Bill simple and straightforward. Then, for over half an hour, we had example after example of what a confused mess we are to face on 3 May.
It seems self-evident that the general election is the most important election facing the country. It is right that it should be held at the earliest possible date. I should have liked it to be held on 26 April, as would my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and most Opposition Members. But the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided that it was necessary to advise Her Majesty that the general election should be held on 3 May. Therefore, we accept it. But why, in the name of goodness, must we have the district council elections on the same day?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Perhaps I may correct my hon. Friend. It is in the name not of goodness but of something much more macabre.

Mr. Cormack: I am beginning charitably. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) may find himself more in agreement with the strictures that I propose to make later.
In justification of his decision, the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues say that it will help to have a high turnout for the local elections. We pride ourselves on working very hard to get a high turnout for local elections. However, we do not lose sight of the fact that among the most important of local elections are those which are closest to the people—community or parish council elections. Yet those elections are being treated with the utmost derision and contempt and are being held entirely on their own on 24 May.
One might say in parenthesis that the whole problem could have been avoided if a day other than a Thursday had been chosen. There is nothing sacrosanct about Thursday. We could have had the general election on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. I think that honour would have been satisfied all round. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) nodding asset.
Let us look at some of the elements of confusion. I am very concerned, as I am sure many hon. Members in all parts of the House are, about the elderly. They will have the awful confusion of the ballot papers. I have seen the grey and the white. Vast numbers of elderly people have eye diseases, such as cataract. It will be difficult for them to distinguish between the ballot papers. I am glad to note that I have the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in this. On top of all the confusion of the names with which elderly people will have been bombarded over previous weeks, they will be given two ballot papers which to those with bad eyesight in a poorly lit polling station will be virtually indistinguishable.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Is he also aware of a matter that, although it may be comparatively minor, is significant? Not all of us are blessed with a reasonably uncommon surname such as his. There

could be on the parliamentary ballot paper a Smith, Brown and Jones who were Conservative, Labour and Liberal and an entirely different Smith, Brown and Jones on the local election ballot paper, who could be Labour, Conservative and National Front.

Mr. Cormack: Not only is that so, but the Government accept that it is so, because, as far as I recall, in the specimens that were circulated earlier there were two Browns on the local election ballot paper and two Browns on the general election ballot paper. Of course that is possible and of course it adds to confusion.
In sum, this amounts not to an elevation of the status of the local election but to a severe criticism of it. The local election should be about local people and local issues. It will be submerged in the national election, and many of the voters will be totally confused.
There are other elements of confusion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) specifically asked me to refer to one in his constituency, which includes part of the Peterborough district council, for which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) is generally responsible. But some of the districts—I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said six—fall into the Huntingdonshire constituency. Therefore, ballot papers must be transported backwards and forwards for a total distance of about 45 miles in the course of a few hours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raised a most important point when he intervened in the Home Secretary's speech. Some of us tried to support him when he asked—and who better than the hon. Member for Peterborough to know all about marginal seats?—what would happen if district papers had been returned in the ballot boxes and then there was a demand for a recount. The instructions, which were rather late arriving, but of which I had a copy through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), say:
It is a matter for the Parliamentary returning officer to determine when he can complete the arrangements to transport the boxes. If it is more convenient, he need not wait for the end of the parliamentary count to do so.


At the very least, that instruction should be amended. Otherwise, there could be confusion.

Mr. Michael Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1966, when we had seven recounts in my constituency, on the first count a complete village set of papers, amounting to about 600, were put back into a box and locked away in an outside room? It would surely be possible in this complicated situation for such accidents to occur. However, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is just a price of delay that we shall have to suffer on 4 May and that most hon. Members should be prepared to accept?

Mr. Cormack: It is not as simple as that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made his point. I was aware that something like that had happened, from the stories with which we were regaled in this House after his predecessor, now in another place, told us about the anxieties and traumas of that mammoth count, when he finished up with a majority of three.
The following is not too fanciful a picture. The results in a number of marginal seats could be declared, having been accepted by the candidates present in the small hours of the morning, and then if there were a gap of 24 hours or 48 hours before the district council results were announced it could transpire that bunches of ballot papers had been mixed up in the middle. We could face a number of election petitions to unseat candidates who thought that they had been declared properly elected in the small hours of the Friday morning.

Mr. Budgen: If a party is returned only with the greatest number of seats, but with no overall majority, and only marginally with a greater number of seats than the next party in the House, it could even be that the Queen would invite the leader of one of the two great parties to form an Administration and then find that as a result of two or three successful election petitions the Government had to change.

Mr. Cormack: I am confident that the margin between the parties will be somewhat larger than that, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point to supplement the point that I made.

Mr. Ian Grist: My hon. Friend may not be aware that in Wales, in the constituency of Brecon and Radnor, which we hope to win, two parts fall into other districts—Brynmawr, which falls in the Ebbw Vale constituency, and Cefu Coed, which falls in the Merthyr Tydfil constituency. Yet both those areas count in the Brecon and Radnor constituency for parliamentary purposes. Will Brecon and Radnor have to finish its entire count before Ebbw Vale and Merthyr Tydfil can even begin their count? In both those seats, and possibly in Brecon and Radnor, there could be recounts not only on marginal wins but on the question of lost deposits.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I was not aware of those particular Welsh aspects, but he makes another valid point that underlines the main point of substance that I am seeking to make. The matter deserves the most careful and detailed reply from the Minister of State, such as we did not have during the Home Secretary's speech.
Talking about the count, I wish to refer to a point that I made briefly in an intervention—concern for the staff. The matter has been brought to me several times over the weekend, not by people who will count in my constituency—because we always count on Friday—but by people who count in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) but live in my constituency. They say that some of them will be in the polling stations from just after 6 a.m. having got up rather earlier, and will work right through the day until 10 p.m. It is quite a job. We all know and appreciate what a job it is.
Those people will have the added difficulty this year of issuing two sets of ballot papers, in whatever colour—

Mr. Greville Janner: No problem.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. and learned Gentleman mutters a derisory comment. I suggest that it is quite a problem. I am a little concerned about the extra clerical work, because it is work which must be conducted with the most scrupulous accuracy if it is to be right.
At the end of the day, at 10 p.m., those concerned have to pack up and go


to the count. Then, according to what the Home Secretary said in answer to questions in the House when he made a statement last Thursday, it will be anything up to a couple of hours before they get on to the count proper, at which stage their powers of observation and their speed of counting, and doing all the other things, will be considerably diminished. One or two of them have pointed out to me that they are genuinely worried about making mistakes. We can all tell stories of lost ballot papers from our experience. These people are genuinely worried about this. They say that this is something which they do not contemplate lightly.
Had the local elections been determined for the same day as the European elections, this is not a complication which would have arisen, because the European votes will not be counted for some three days after the election. Again, that is something which the Minister should take on board. However, the lack of concern for the staff worries me greatly.
Then, again dealing with all the confusions, we come to the confusion which will face thousands of people up and down the country when they suddenly learn, from reading their newspapers tomorrow, that their perfectly valid nominations for the parish council are now invalid. I suggest that this is treating these people in a very cavalier manner. There is, perhaps, a case for saying that the nomination date—as has been done in the case of postal votes—could be extended. But to say that those who have been duly, properly and validly nominated by 5 April must discount those nominations and start again is a disgrace. I beg the Minister, at the very least, to do something on that score.
Concerning the ballot boxes themselves, I do not know what the situation is in every constituency. I know that in some constituencies—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) tells me that this is so in his constituency—there are quite enough ballot boxes for the papers to be put separately into them.

Mr. English: Since none of us has had the opportunity to read these notes until just now, we have all been thinking about ballot boxes alone. That is all that is mentioned in them. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in some parts of the

country the polling stations in which to put them will not be available, because in some parts temporary huts are often used, in many constituencies, which are so small that just before closing time there is a queue outside?
It might not take twice as long to do these two votes, but it will take, say, 50 per cent. longer, so where we have temporary huts and not big schools or buildings such as that, we need more space. There is no provision in the guidance notes for the provision of extra huts into which to put the extra ballot boxes.

Mr. Cormack: That is a very good point.

Mr. John: Perhaps I may make one of the more constructive interventions of the afternoon. I wish to report that the supply of ballot papers is now being distributed to hon. Members and is available on the Table, and that extra copies are available in the Vote Office for those who are not present in the Chamber taking part in the debate now.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that I speak for the whole House, in this if in nothing else, in saying "Thank you" to the Minister for that intervention.
Perhaps I may indicate that hon. Members will be seeing for themselves for the first time that my recollection was indeed correct, and that the Government have indicated two "Browns" on the district council election and two "Browns" on the parliamentary elections—totally emphasising the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Dudley Smith: And for different parties.

Mr. Cormack: Indeed.
Let us revert to the point that I was making about ballot boxes. I should like to reply properly to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. In my constituency there are a number of polling stations which are actually in the living rooms of private houses in villages. This is a problem. However, I think that the real problem is that we could have people queueing to vote who would not be able to vote, not because they had not themselves allowed the normal time that they allow for going to the polling station but because the extra clerical procedures were


denying them their franchise. That is again a very important point. We must at the very least have some sort of monitoring system so that everyone who arrives on the premises of the polling station before 10 p.m. is allowed to cast his or her valid vote.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On the question of ballot boxes, does my hon. friend accept that part of the difficulty might be overcome by allowing local returning officers the option of having either a single ballot box or having two, and, when we go into Committee, the Chairman seeing fit to call an amendment in my name which would change the word from "shall" to "may"?

Mr. Cormack: I would willingly accept anything designed to improve the present confusion. Of course, in a district such as my own, where district and constituency are exactly coterminous, that would be an admirable solution, and it ought to be available for the returning officer to opt for that if he so wishes, at the very least.
I do not wish to continue at greater length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I suggest to those hon. Members who are making facetious comments that every point that I have made is valid, that not one has any exaggeration in it, and that every situation which I have envisaged is entirely possible.
What this matter comes down to is that the person who has had the greatest sense in the debate so far is the hon. Member for Isle of Wight in moving the amendment. He got in rather quicker than I did. I had a simple amendment in manuscript form together with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. But the hon. Member's amendment would have the effect of preventing this colossal mix-up. I genuinely fear for our democratic process and for our local candidates being submerged in this welter of confusion and totally subordinated to national issues. I hope that even at this late stage the House will exert its authority and reject this Bill, so that the Government are obliged to bring in another measure tomorrow.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: We have all been candidates, but

I do not know whether I have the unique distinction in the House of also having had the responsibility of being a returning officer in an election, although not in this country, and for an area the size of the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson). Therefore, when the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) refers to the length of time and the fatigue involved, I know exactly what he means. I think that we shall be demanding a great deal of people, and probably far more than it is reasonable for us to require of them. I shall comment on the effects of that, as I anticipate them, in a moment.
When the House withdrew its confidence from the Government last Wednesday, what it really did was to serve notice on the Prime Minister that he should tender advice to Her Majesty that an election should be held at the earliest reasonable opportunity. There is nothing in the constitution that requires it to be held on a particular date. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) pointed out last week when referring to the last two instances when a Government were so defeated, whereas on the last occasion Ramsay MacDonald had Parliament dissolved straight away, on the preceding occasion, in 1886, seven weeks elapsed before it happened.
There would be nothing improper and it would be to everyone's advantage if the general election had been held clear of Easter, the Budget and the local elections. It is arguable that the Budget itself has to be tailored for the fact that the House has withdrawn its confidence from the Government. I think that that is accepted. But there seems to be no reason whatsoever why Dissolution should not have been on 4 May and the general election on 24 May. We would thus have avoided the kind of mess into which we have now got ourselves.
I do not think that it would have been reasonable to have gone beyond that. Had the Government won last week, I was hoping that we would have a general election on 7 June, so that the matter could be enmeshed, at least politically, with the Common Market issue—not that I have the slightest intention of voting for any European candidate, anyway, but certainly in order that the Common Market


issue could have been brought forward as a major factor in the general election. That is no longer possible.
What are we faced with? We face a situation in which, as several hon. Members have said, we sweep aside the parish council elections in the most imperious way. That is bad enough. But, worse still, we shall have to have this long, marathon count. I honestly hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the kind of difficulties that will arise for returning officers faced with close results and with stray ballot papers. If we are to have a situation—it looks by no means impossible—in which, perhaps at the ballot paper reconciliation before we even get to the count, the sealed-up local authority election papers will have to be unsealed and searched in order to find stray papers, it will be absolutely intolerable.
It is not quite so likely to apply in urban areas, although it is possible. But it is more than likely that it could happen in very large widespread constituencies, not all of which postpone their counts until the day after the election. Government supporters remember the Carmarthen election result of the last general election because it was the one seat which Labour lost. It is a large electoral area. One imagines that the difficulties, although they are surmountable and were surmounted, were daunting enough. But they must have left the people concerned with the administration of them extremely fatigued. Imagine a constituency of that territorial character, with the complications of district council elections and the possibility of very close results, as happened in Carmarthen when it produced a majority of exactly three votes. One can well see that we shall be imposing on our staff a quite intolerable strain.
Obviously it is difficult at this late stage to withdraw the Bill. I do not think that that is a reasonable request to make of the Government. But there might at least come forth from the Home Office a directive that, in order to spare people from excessive strain and to reduce the possibility of difficulties arising over the cross-referencing—indeed, the cross-losing—of ballot papers, all the counts should in any event be postponed until the following day. That would minimise the difficulties. I do not say that it would

eliminate them. It could avoid a situation which might result in great difficulty.
I have not only been a returning officer. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), I have had the trauma of being on the wrong end of a very close result. My parliamentary baptism of fire was to be defeated by 10 votes in a total poll of more than 50,000. For that reason, I am firmly of the belief that absolute accuracy of returns is of paramount importance.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I intervene because the hon. Member is a barrister, and I am not is it a convention, or is it a legal requirement, that once counting agents and others have gone into a count, they cannot leave until it is completed? If that is a requirement of the law, that more and more reinforces the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Lee: Speaking off the cuff, I think that it is convention. There have been several instances where there has been a complete impasse as a result of an extremely close result and, because of sheer fatigue, the counting has been postponed until the following day. It happened at Plymouth in the last election, it happened at Carmarthen in 1974, and it happened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) in 1964. Those are three instances which I happen to remember. Presumably, since no one raised any legal objection subsequently, it is a convention. But if it be a convention and a matter which can be rectified simply, I suggest that the Home Office should take that step and provide for it for the future.
I hope that I shall be in order if I make one or two observations on what is probably my last appearance in this House. I make this suggestion for the future now that we are considering the general character of elections, as we are bound to in relation to the Representation of the People Act 1918, from which all subsequent legislation flows, including the present Bill.
I wonder whether the time has not come when we ought to think in terms of keeping Parliament lawfully in being until after an election. It is a constitutional solecism to talk about the re-election or the defeat of a sitting Member. As from the Royal Proclamation, there is no such being as a sitting Member. In contrast


with local government, where, under the Local Government Act, the outgoing councillor remains statutorily such until four days after the election in which he retires or is defeated, a Member of Parliament ceases to be such from the Royal Proclamation.
Imagine a Cuban-style crisis arising in the middle of a general election and it being necessary, perhaps, to vest in Government statutory powers of an emergency kind. We have no provision for this to occur. It may seem that the usual 20 days' campaign is not a very long period in which a world crisis can arise, but it is possible. The coming election, because of the intervention of Easter, will be statutorily longer and we shall be deprived of the mandate of any Parliament and any Government for a longer period than usual.
I find this somewhat worrying. In the future, I should like to see an arrangement comparable to the American vesting day. A suitable way to avoid the difficulties which could arise in a crisis would be if outgoing Members remained with their membership expiring at midnight on the day before the new House met to elect Mr. Speaker. There would then be complete continuity.
In that way, we would avoid the difficulties which could arise. It is not likely to occur internationally, but such an arrangement could be of importance in the event of some internal crisis. I cast out the suggestion. I know that this is not the Bill by which it could be done. But I hope that it has been in order to raise it, and it may be that it will interest some hon. Members after I have gone.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The first difficulty of an entirely avoidable nature which the House encountered was the intention of the Government not even to make a statement which could be questioned here. But, having overcome that by having a statement made here, the Home Office then sent round a circular which after so much trouble hon. Members have acquired in the middle of this debate. In some cases this was delivered by special arrangement to returning officers on Saturday morning. The astonishing aspect is that the Home

Office then made no arrangements for anyone who knew about the subject to be available at the Home Office on Saturday so that the returning officers could raise queries which they wanted to determine in order that they could raise matters with Members of Parliament which they wanted discussed in this debate.
A returning officer in my constituency rang the Home Office with a query about the circular which he received last Saturday on a matter which he wanted to discuss with me in preparation for this debate. The duty officer told him that he knew nothing about the arrangements and that no one was available who could answer questions on them.
That is scandalous, and I think that the Minister of State owes it to the House to say why he and his right hon. Friend did not trouble themselves to see that one officer in his Department was available on Saturday so that returning officers could ascertain what the Government intended in time to discuss it with their Members of Parliament in a proper way before the weekend was over.
The circular says, after all, that there are delays in the post. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can say that again.

Mr. Cormack: It says more than that. It says that returning officers must not rely on the post.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It says that they must not rely on the post. It says:
Unofficial industrial action by Post Office workers has already caused severe delays in the South-East of England … Guidance on matters in this circular may, however, be sought by telephone from the special inquiry office which has been set up for this purpose at the Home Office. The telephone number of this office is 01–213 3633 and all inquiries should be put to this office and not to the individual members of staff whose numbers have been given in previous circulars.
Quite so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why was there not anyone at that number who could give that service which the circular announced until it was too late for returning officers to find out the answers they wanted?
There are matters which are inadequately covered in this circular. Neither the Bill nor the circular goes fully into the question of official marks. If ballot papers do not bear the official mark, they


are spoiled papers. Presumably, it has to be the right official mark.
One of the returning officers in my constituency tells me that the law requires that one cannot use an official mark which has been used in the last six years. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), where there are seven different returning officers, that means that there are 42 official marks, presumably, which cannot be used. I understand that returning officers have a machine with five rows, each of five pins. Those who are skilled at filling in their pools will be able to calculate more quickly than I what are the permutations. The guidance says that the same official mark must be used by all returning officers. Annex A on page 3 says:
The same Official Mark must be used for both elections.
In the district council elections in my constituency, there will be three different returning officers and in my hon. Friend's constituency in Yorkshire there will be six, plus the parliamentary one, making seven, This means that they have to use the same official mark. There will be at least 42 that they cannot use. That, of course, is not the minimum because there are certain to have been by-elections in some of those seven in the course of each of the last six years. We may find ourselves in a situation where there is no official mark that can easily be discovered—I dare say the services of a computer might be able to find one—that has not been used.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I rise to offer some help to the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who may need it on this narrow point. He mentioned permutations. In my constituency is the headquarters of the well-known Littlewoods pools company. I am certain that the company's excellent British computers would be made available to any returning officer who wanted to feed in information and straight away receive any of probably 200 valid permutations. That is a free offer that I hope the hon. Gentleman cannot refuse.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not know, without the necessary access, what is the actual form laid down by the law for the imprint. I do not know, nor, possibly, does the Minister, how many prongs of

the 25 available have to be used for a valid mark. No guidance is given in the Bill or in the guidance notes on this point. This is the sort of confusion that is likely to arise and which, if the situation goes wrong, could result in a whole spate of applications to the High Court for declaring papers invalid.
Cases have been recounted in this debate of votes going astray. The late clerk of Devon county council, Mr. Godsall, told me how, in one constituency for which he was returning officer, two unopened boxes were found after the result had been declared. He destroyed the contents because he reckoned that there were not enough to overturn the majority. Perhaps that was good sense, although it might have provided considerable occupation for lawyers had it been known at the time.

Mr. Lee: Did that person realise that he was committing a grave criminal offence?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, he did, and he had another drink on the strength of it, recalling the occasion.

Mr. Cormack: When did this happen?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It was back in the 1950s.
I am concerned about the question of counting agents' verification and recounts. This is the first time, so far as I know, in the whole history of democratic elections this century—I am open to correction—when candidates' counting agents and, indeed, candidates themselves will not be allowed to be present when the boxes are opened with their votes inside. It is proposed that neither district council candidates nor their counting agents wilt be present to check that the votes cast for them are put in the correct piles and then despatched to the right returning officer—two crucial matters.
This is not a task that can be undertaken by the counting agents for the parliamentary candidates. They will have enough to do watching their own. Who will be in a position to ensure that there have not been included with district council votes, despatched before the close of the parliamentary count to district council returning officers, votes which should have been included in the parliamentary count?
It is crucial for democracy that the electorate and the candidates should have confidence in the fairness of the arrangement made. Here, the Government are deliberately arranging affairs so that the entire spectrum of district councillors will be disbarred from ensuring that the votes cast for them are properly counted. This is a major constitutional aberration and an entirely avoidable one. If the district council elections were postponed for one week only, that problem would not arise. Why are the Government so determined to have these two elections on the same day, knowing that they are creating huge areas for honest error as well as considerable areas for dishonest error? That is what the Government are deliberately and knowingly doing.
When will the result of the district council elections be known? My own constituency is widespread with 76 different polling stations. It is by no means the most far-flung constituency. Counting does not begin until the next day. It is not until then that the ballot boxes have been safely gathered in. That day, Friday, is the day before a bank holiday weekend. Monday is a bank holiday. Normally, it is bank staff who are used to count. The urgent Home Office communication sent out gives the not very generous pay and allowances which will be offered to these people. How many will want to take on this job on a Friday, knowing that it may not be completed on the Friday?
I am advised by one returning officer that it may take as long as five hours to complete the verification before the count is started. What happens when it gets to be so late on the Friday that the returning officer decides to suspend the count? He may do that because he notices that the counters are starting to make mistakes from fatigue. Will they be asked to count on the bank holiday Saturday, the bank holiday Sunday or the bank holiday Monday? Or will the count be adjourned from Friday until Tuesday? The Secretary of State has said nothing about this, yet this is the reality.

Mr. Cormack: Yet Parliament is to meet on the Wednesday.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Indeed, in close-run constituencies it would be an unwise returning officer who allowed the district council ballot papers to be dispatched to

the many corners of the constituency, there to be jumbled in with the others from a different parliamentary constituency, because he would not know until the end how close the result would be.
If the returning officer releases those papers and then has to call them back—by definition he probably cannot call them back until they have reached their intended destination—he faces the problem of the bank holiday traffic on a Friday evening. We are talking about the complete constipation that descends on the road system in many areas on the second part of a bank holiday Friday. That is when the ballot boxes may have to be recalled from the district returning officers to the parliamentary officers so that a recount may take place there to ensure that there are not papers for the parliamentary election which were inadvertently enclosed within the papers sent, wrongly, as entirely district council papers. These are some of the realities of choosing such an absurd system just before a bank holiday weekend.
The Secretary of State assured us that he had consulted doctors about colour blindness. But eyes get tired as well as being colour blind. After 10 hours of scrutiny, eyes can become very tired, particularly if some of those doing the counting have also been polling clerks during the day, as may happen in some areas. Are these two shades—white and off-white—so very dissimilar that mistakes cannot be made in good faith?
"Ah," says the Secretary of State, "but look at the back of the paper", referring to the papers which we did not have but now have. The backs of the papers will indeed say which ward or constituency they are for. Did the Secretary of State intend another operation, that during the verification process the papers should be turned so that their backs might be examined as well as their faces?

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Home Office is so confused that it has even given two separate addresses for the one fictitious candidate on these ballot papers?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Home Office has done some remarkable things including predicting the conferment of a viscountcy upon you, Mr. Deputy


Speaker. One sees that, if the papers are looked at with great care.
Among the matters over which this House has no control are the circulars sent out by the Home Secretary. All that we can do—I think we are entitled to do this—is to ask for undertakings from the right hon. Gentleman. He is an honourable man, and I would certainly accept an undertaking that he gave. One undertaking that I would ask for is that he will rescind the permission to parliamentary returning officers to send out the packages of votes which are believed to contain district council votes to district returning officers before the declaration of the parliamentary poll.
When the Secretary of State was out of the Chamber, for reasons that I entirely understand, a number of hon. Members said that it is likely that parliamentary papers will find their way, through honest error, into the packages of district council ones. I said, because the right hon. Gentleman did not mention this, that on a bank holiday evening, with bank holiday traffic congesting the roads severely in many areas, the purely mechanical problem of recovering all the packages of votes from district council returning officers will be all but insurmountable.
The only safe course, therefore, is for all the papers to be retained after verification by the parliamentary returning officer until the declaration of the poll. Until the declaration of the poll, recounts can be requested.
It does not inspire me with confidence in the person who drafted this circular that there is no mention of recounts in it. Can it be that this simply did not occur to him? Nor is there mention of the possible difficulties in finding an official mark which has not been used in any of the constituencies concerned, district or parliamentary, in the last six years.
This has all the hallmarks of a hastily cooked-up scheme. It is distasteful to the House, it is unjust and even ruinous to the individual, to have to sort out in the High Court after the election the results of a lack of administrative forethought. That must be undesirable. I hope that it will be clear to the Home Secretary by now that the only sensible way of dealing with this problem is to postpone the dis-

trict council elections until after the parliamentary election.
There is a further point, which is not just to do with money. The district councils do not have an unlimited number of highly qualified and experienced staff, used to dealing with election matters. In many district councils a great deal of time has been expended verifying the parish council nomination papers. There is no need whatever to scrap them and say that all nominations must be submitted de novo for the delayed parish council elections. By all means, let us say that new nominations by new would-be candidates are receivable. But that is no reason for rendering invalid nominations that have already been received, the validity of which has been checked at such high cost in time to officials who will be grossly over-burdened arranging the parliamentary election.
I understand that the law requires that all the notices for the European Assembly elections should be sent out three days before polling day for the parliamentary elections, which are to be held on the same day as the district council elections. This shows the sort of burden that will be cast on district councillors.

Mr. John: In fact, it is one day before.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: One day, a day when the district councillors will be busiest, and a day when they need to be fresh for the ardours of the count. How absurd that is.
In many district councils only three or four people possess the necessary skills to do this type of job reliably. Needlessly to waste their time by declaring null and void all the valid parish council nominations that have been received, checked and approved is an unforgivable piece of administrative nonsense.

Mr. Ward: Is not the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) nit-picking? Is not the task of having notices published by the man who does it regularly for the returning officer a very simple and straightforward operation? Will he not have planned them and had them printed some time before?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it is not. The notices have to be posted up in all the required places and it must be checked


that they have been so posted. The Home Office circular states that there may be a postal go-slow at the time. In that circular a specific warning is given by the Home Office that we cannot rely on having a postal system functioning at the time. It is not just a matter of putting a notice in, for example, the London Gazette. Notices have to be posted up all over the place. If they are not, applications can be made to the courts because the requirements of the law have not been carried out.
All in all, this Bill is an unprecedented mess. It is also an entirely avoidable mess. What is equally clear is that neither the Secretary of State nor his professional advisers in the Home Office have thought this matter out properly before asking Parliament to agree to it. That is a gross affront not only to Parliament—which depends for its credibility upon elections which are not only fair but are seen by the public at large to be fair—but to the public.
To make elections unnecessarily complicated is a service to no one. We all know that there is one reason only for the Government endeavouring to force this on the country. They believe that they can win a few extra seats for the Labour Party in the district council elections. The Government are seeking to abrogate some of the most important democratic safeguards, such as the presence of candidates and their counting agents when the ballot boxes are opened, for that one shoddy purpose.

Mr. John: I believe that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) gave me notice of a manuscript amendment dealing with the question of nominations which are validated for an election which is postponed, which is what we are talking about with regard to community councils. I can tell the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I would be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment, and that all nominations for community councils which have been validated to date will not be scrapped.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister said "community councils". Does he include parish councils?

Mr. John: They are called community councils in my part of the world, but of

course they are still parish councils in England.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Perhaps at some time the Minister of State will tell us why he had to rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) to table an amendment. If the Government had looked, even with cursory intelligence, at this matter they should have suggested the amendment themselves instead of having to rely on a Conservative Back Bencher to do their administrative task for them. This merely reinforces the point I made earlier that this scheme, for such a shoddy purpose, was not thought out properly beforehand. I am afraid that that is the inescapable truth.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: The inescapable truth is that those who oppose the Bill because they are afraid of what will happen when the district council elections are held on the same day as the general election have loosed upon the House a flood of alleged confusion—confusion which does not exist. The truth is that they have deliberately underestimated both the intelligence of the electorate and the skill of electoral staffs.
When the electors go to the polls for local elections, as they will by the thousand, and with a percentage about double that which normally turns out, the Opposition are afraid of what will happen to them. When the country goes to the polls and there is the highest possible turnout, the Opposition will find that they will, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) indicated, lose vast areas of the country which the Conservatives gained when the turnout was very small. That is the only reason for opposition to this excellent and necessary Bill.
The hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out that a Conservative Back Bencher had had to produce an amendment that was acceptable. That is what the debate is for. That is what the House is for. In this way we find mistakes and errors in what has been done and can point them out and have them repaired.
As for the electorate not being able to see the difference between the two bits of paper, I suggest that that is a very unusual idea. Apart from the difference in colour, name and printing, if a person


enters a polling station who is blind because of a cataract, he or she will go to the polling station with a cataract anyway and will go to the presiding officer and ask for help, just as if there were one ballot paper only.
The only confusion that I find with these ballot papers is that whoever invented them has seen fit to put:
Brown, John Edward—Merchant—Labour",
Brown, Thomas William, Swindon—salesman—Conservative
and
Jones, William David, Wiltshire—gentleman—Liberal".
adding
Merton, Hon. George Travis—commonly called Viscount Merton—Independent
which seems a very odd way of ensuring that nobody could ever believe that it was a real ballot paper.
The only people who are confused are those who have put forward the amendment. They have not even bothered to think through what the result of the passage of the amendment would be. They have said that it would create less confusion because they do not like more than one election in one place at one time, as they think that one person could only understand what he or she was doing if there was only one vote. Apart from the fact that in other democratic countries, such as the United States, people are used to voting for very large numbers and seem to exercise a form of democracy of which we approve, the Representation of the People Bill has two purposes. The first of these is to enable the district elections and the general election to be held at the same time. The other is to postpone the parish or community elections which otherwise would have been held on the same day as the district council elections.
Instead of having the general election with the parish or community council elections, which would, according to the Opposition, no doubt create the same confusion and traffic constipation as the hon. Member for Tiverton described, there will be a different combination of elections. However, they are of very great importance, and here we come to the true democratic process.
I hope that we all agree that it is a tragedy that the electorate fails to recognise the importance of local elections. It

is a tragedy that the electorate is not prepared to vote at them. In my Leicester constituency, only now do people realise that by allowing a Conservative council to be elected they have allowed the cutting by three-quarters of council housing in a stress housing area. They do not recognise the damage that can be done by a local council. They are prepared in general to appear at the ballot box only for a general election.

Mr. Cormack: Before the hon. and learned Member has apoplexy, will he concede that most of the people who will vote in the local elections on 3 May—I shall welcome a high turnout—will be coming for the most part to vote on national issues?

Mr. Janner: No, I believe that there is great misapprehension on this matter. Members of Parliament, and sometimes even our own colleagues in our cities, cannot understand that national and local issues are closely bound together. The main reason why people vote is complicated. In some cases it is related to money, to what they can buy, and in some cases it is related to jobs, but in other cases it is because they want to protest about housing. After all, the Minister for Housing can declare Leicester a stress housing area, but it is the local authority which says that, stress area or not, it will not build. When the electorate turns out in its thousands, as it will in Leicester, to vote against the party that behaves in that way, it is not for the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) to say why they will do so. They are coming to exercise their democratic right to vote—

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Janner: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Cormack: That is very democratic.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West has been talking on and off for the last hour—

Mr. Cormack: Yes, and making a jolly sight more sense than the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).

Mr. Janner: Some people have a very high opinion of themselves. It would be fairer if we were to consider the issues in a reasonable manner.
The areas of alleged confusion are not such as would cause the sort of concern that has been suggested by Conservative Members. There has been discussion about postponing counts. Every area will do what it sees fit. In Leicester it has been decided to have the parliamentary count in the evening and, in order that, people may have some sleep, to hold the local election count at 5.30 in the afternoon. That is a perfectly sensible and reasonable arrangement, which has been settled locally.
The confusion created by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches reminds us of the story that is sometimes told against us, which is that politics is the oldest profession in the world. The Bible tells us that even before the world was created there was chaos and confusion. When one listens to Conservative Members deliberately creating chaos and confusion, one understands how the oldest profession came to be so dubbed.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I shall make a brief speech because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have so often rebuked me in this Parliament for being too long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): What I have been told privately leads me to hope that that is the correct explanation for the hon. Member's brevity.

Mr. Budgen: It has been made plain by my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is the gravest risk of confusion. It is plain that however the vote may go tonight there is a strong preference on our side of the House for the district elections to be postponed for at least a week. There are good reasons for that which do not in any way depend upon the likely outcome of the district council elections.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will try genuinely to assist the House by answering the question that I posed earlier. What are the arguments against postponing the district council elections? How much would it cost to recompense the local authorities for extra expenditure? What disadvantages would be felt by the candidates in the district council elections? It is plain

that the overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the House is to the effect that there are real disadvantages in what the Government propose, and we would like to know what can be balanced against those disadvantages. What is there in favour of having both elections on one day as compared with the no doubt considerable cost and inconvenience of postponing the district elections? We would wish to be in a position to make a balanced judgment.
This is not a small matter. The Government want, probably for electoral reasons, to hold the general election and the district council elections together. The Opposition Front Bench is clearly not minded to recommend that we should vote against the Second Reading. However, real damage will be done to a sense of fairness if a substantial number of Back Benchers independently vote against the Second Reading. We want valid reasons for voting for the Bill. It is not good enough for the Government to assume that because there is some tacit agreement the Bill can be pushed through without proper reasons being given.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I found it difficult to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) because he was not speaking up. What he said caused some confusion, but I am sure that his intentions were good.
There is now no Home Office Minister on the Government Front Bench, and so I shall converse on various subjects until a Minister bothers to come back to us. We understand why the Secretary of State could not be here, and we totally excuse him. But there is no reason why others from the Home Office shoud not be present. I appreciate that the Minister of State has been here and may wish to pay a visit somewhere. But, if the Bill is sufficiently important to be put through the House in one day, two Home Office Ministers should have the courtesy to stay in the Chamber. I shall not discuss the principal matter that I wish to raise until a Home Office Minister returns.
Instead I shall talk about the ballot papers which we have been given as examples. They are printed on interesting paper. The colour is distinctive. The Home Secretary described it as election grey. I call it muddy grey.

Mr. Cormack: The Minister is back.

Mr. Finsberg: In that case I shall revert to my main point. I quite understand that the Minister of State had to go somewhere. I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading or to vote for the Liberal amendment. I want to stress to the Minister of State what I regard as a most serious point which I put to the Home Office on Friday. I have tried to put it again at the request of my electoral registration officer. It is a problem which concerns two-elevenths of my constituents. There are 11 wards in my constituency. In two of them by-elections are to take place on 3 May. Those who advise the Minister tell him that there are only two or three such by-elections, that they do not matter, and that the Bill should not be changed. However, democracy will not be served by having electors in two of my wards turning up to vote between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on 3 May expecting to be able to vote for the borough council candidate and the parliamentary candidate and finding that they can vote for only one.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Perhaps my hon. Friend will go on with his earlier discourse until he can have the attention of the Minister for the important point he is making.

Mr. Finsberg: Until a moment ago the Minister of State was paying his usual customary and courteous attention to points raised during a speech. He is clearly being distracted, and no one, human though he may be, has more than two ears. The Minister is in difficulty.
In those two wards, voters of all ages and all parties will turn up and some of them will be disfranchised. Those turning up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. will not be able to vote for the borough council candidate. Those who turn up between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. will be similarly disfranchised.
The poll cards will be issued by the returning officer. There will have to be one poll card for the borough council election and another for the parliamentary election, both showing different times. I understand that at present separate polling stations will be used as well as separate boxes. That is not the point.
The point is that people will turn up to do their democratic duty and find that

it is not possible. Why is it so difficult for the Minister to say that he will arrange for a suitable amendment to be made when the Bill goes to another place, so that the hours of poll in the places where there are by-elections are the same? That is as far as I go, and I should have thought that I have made a reasonable request.
I am not asking for coloured papers or non-coloured papers, though I do not want all the papers to be placed in the same box. All I want is for the Minister to say that he understands my point and that people will not, if they go to polling stations at the parliamentary hours, be disfranchised for two of the hours from voting in a borough council election.
The Minister may ask why did I not table an amendment. I did, but I was told that it was outside the long title and therefore unacceptable. I do not argue about that. But I understand that it would be possible for the Government to put this right. I make an appeal to the Minister to try to do that. It is a small thing, but it would be helpful in the cause of democracy. It is a worry both to the candidates who are fighting those two by-elections and to the returning officer. In the end, the poor presiding officers will have to bear the brunt of the anger of the people who turn up expecting to vote in two elections and who find that they cannot.
I hope that the Minister will find a way to get round this difficulty. I also hope that he will acquit me of any discourtesy. Like me, he probably did not expect the Bill to be debated today when he planned his engagements. I have to be somewhere else at 7 p.m. Normally I do not leave once I have made a speech. I sit through the debate, sometimes to the bitter end. I hope that when I read the report of the debate tomorrow, I shall see that the Minister found it possible to say that the polling hours problem can, and will, be solved by a suitable amendment in another place.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I join the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) in hoping that the Minister can arrange, through another place, for polling in every district council and parliamentary election to take place


on 3 May between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. That would be a straightforward procedure. I think that we have one by-election on that day in Liverpool. It should not be beyond the skill and knowledge of draftsmen to achieve that result through an amendment in another place. That is as far as I agree with the hon. Member.
In this debate Conservative Members have called for an immediate general election, as early as 26 April. That would have caused difficulties, because there is a lot of business before the House this week. The next available date was 3 May. Either both elections should be held together or one should be postponed.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Why could we not have had the general election on a Tuesday or a Wednesday? Why must it always be on a Thursday?

Mr. Ogden: We never have them on Saturday or Sunday either. We should not be deciding these issues in the context of an emergency. If we had wanted a general election on a Saturday, we could have decided that 12 months ago. That would have been logical. For many years we have held general elections on a Thursday. We are stuck with Thursday, although every hon. Member recognises that two elections on one day in one place will cause difficulties. The difficulties will not be for the candidates as much as for those organising the election. However, good agents and returning officers, with good staff, should be able to overcome those difficulties. More doubt and worry about this issue has been expressed in the House than I have heard in Liverpool since the election date was announced.
The United States can manage massive polling lists, as can Ireland, under the proportional representation system. Are Conservative Members suggesting that it is beyond the wit of British electors to go to a place on a particular day, receive two pieces of paper and decide where to put their crosses? Are they saying that that is beyond the skill, wit and intelligence of voters? If they are, they grossly underestimate them.
If the Whip will belt up for a moment he will be able to listen to me. I can put my point a little more bluntly, because he now needs me more than I

need him. "Belt up" is the colloquialism we use in Liverpool, and has nothing to do with the measure that I supported two weeks ago on the subject of seat belts. My expression was a plea for some attention.
After many years of effort, the party nomenclature is now to be stated on the ballot paper. However, it is in the smallest print available. Could not the party affiliation—describing the candidate as a Labour or Conservative Party candidate—be in bolder letters for this election? We are supposed to be helping electors. In one constituency at the last general election there were three people by the name of Hughes.
Whoever produced the guidance must have had a Liberal streak, because in the example the Labour candidate is described as a merchant, the Conservative candidate as a salesman and the Liberal candidate as a gentleman.

Mr. John: The ballot papers are reproduced from the Representation of the People Act, which sets out those names and descriptions. They are nothing more than illustrative. I hope that my hon. Friends will not have heart attacks on their account.

Mr. Ogden: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to steal my punchline. Some time ago I inquired of the Table Office how to describe myself at election time. It was no use my saying that I was an ex-coal miner, since I was then a full-time politician. I was told that by Act of Parliament I was a gentleman. A Member of Parliament who seeks reelection is known as a gentleman.
Local government and national Government issues are bound together. In Liverpool, Liberals and Conservatives control the city council. One-third of my time is spent trying to sort out the errors of that local government. Hon. Members are being subjected to more and more pressure to give more time to local government affairs.
If there were an Act that provided that Members of Parliament should give no time and use no influence locally to effect housing, roads, or schools, our lives would be easier. Inevitably, much of our work involves local government.
At election time it has been the practice on Merseyside to distribute a voters'


guide. Political parties are not allowed to distribute poll cards. By the free post that we are allowed at election time, we send a note saying that the registration officer will send an official poll card. We suggest that this time we should be allowed to inform electors that they have one vote for a local councillor and another for a Member of Parliament and to include the names involved in each.
I hope that the Minister will not say that we shall be restricted in our use of the free post. I accept the weight restriction, but the candidate should decide how to use his free postal delivery. I hope that the parliamentary candidate will not be told that he can make no mention of local government, because that would be the opposite of what is intended.
I see no difficulties that cannot be overcome in having the two elections in one day. I have more confidence in the people of Liverpool than perhaps some Opposition Members have in their constituents.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) will not be here in the next Parliament, because of his own choice. He and I have not always agreed, but he is a respected and honourable Member of the House and he will be missed by many. He said that he was once a returning officer and that he was defeated by 10 votes in one election. I was not clear whether he was defeated as a returning officer or as a candidate, but I am sure that he meant that he was defeated as a candidate. It is not the voting that counts but the counting of votes.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I shall be more brief than I intended because the Minister of State has dealt with a matter that I intended to raise in relation to nominations for parish councils. I refer to annex A, paragraph 4, of the guidance notes. I am delighted that the instructions in that annex are suspended and that those who have already been nominated for parish councils may allow their nominations to stand in suspense. They will remain valid, contrary to the instructions in the guidance.
Mention has been made of the work that has already been done on the presentation of nomination papers. In my constituency there is a district and a borough

council. In the district council alone there are 43 parishes, and an average of between five and 20 parish councillors are to be elected for each parish. The number of possible nominations for one district is between 600 and 700. That means that much work has already been done. I am glad that that work has not been wasted.
A little heat has been generated already by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). The hon. and learned Member is my political neighbour. I must assume that he generated the heat because he sees defeat looming and that he is anxious to use this last chance to make as great an impact as possible on the House of Commons.
Paragraph 11 of the guidance document is headed "Fees and Expenses". I have been in touch with my local district councils and the returning officers. They believe that because of the complex and difficult task that they will have to perform, the fee of £22 for presiding officers and £16 for clerks is not enough.
Under the guidance issued by the Home Office when it was thought that district and parish council elections were to take place on 3 May, the fee for the presiding officer was not to exceed £25. In the new guidance notes which have been distributed by special delivery today, the maximum suggested is £22 and £16.
This will be an unusually difficult and complex election to administer. A more realistic approach should be taken to cater for the arduous and difficult task that the officers must undertake. I should like to see the remuneration increased considerably to £40 for the presiding officer and £30 for the poll clerks.
The other point that I wish to raise has been dealt with at length by a number of hon. Members, apparently without success. Parliament will not gain anything by having the district council and general elections on the same day. The plea has been put by many hon. Members that it is still not too late to separate the dates and to postpone the district council elections. It is still possible to preserve 3 May as the date for the general election alone.
1 make no secret of the fact that last week—when it was not too late and up


to which time we could have arranged for a three-line Whip tonight—a number of my hon. Friends strongly urged that we should press for separate days for the elections. It is not a question of concern over the number of people voting in the district council elections. It is more a concern about the message that the various candidates have to get over. The message of all candidates will be indistinct, confused and, to a certain extent, garbled.
I have already had to think twice about a suggestion that I should canvass in my constituency with my local district councillors. I can see that if I were canvassing on national issues, I would make no progress and my district council colleagues would be held up at every house by complaints about leaking pipes or drain covers which need replacing.
The general election is too important for us to allow it to be clouded by local government issues. It is too late for the House to alter the path on which we are irrevocably proceeding. I regret that and I believe that the general election would have been more easily understood by the electorate if we had postponed the district council elections by a week.
I commend the Home Office for going to the trouble of providing the explanatory notes and guidance and specimens of the two sorts of ballot paper. While the designs are sufficiently different, I can foresee problems in polling stations such as those in old village halls where the screens around the polling booths are very high. They prevent anyone from seeing where a voter is putting his cross, but they also prevent light from penetrating and my fear is that, whether or not there is artificial light, some voters will have difficulty in discerning the difference between the different coloured ballot papers. If it is not too late, I hope that we may be able to get a completely different colour for the district council election papers. With those reservations, I welcome the Bill.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for accepting the proposal that nominations for parish council elections that have already been submitted and validated should retain their validity.

That indicates a helpful flexibility on the Government's part.
I urge the Government to offer the same flexibility to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and others who have referred to the problem of local council by-elections taking place on the same day as the general election. I urge the Home Secretary to understand the frustration that will occur and the complaints that will follow if electors are told when they go to the polling station between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. that they can vote in the general election at that time but will have to come back in an hour or so to vote in the council by-election. Obviously, they will not return. Only a small amendment would be necessary to solve that problem.
I wish to make a few points in answer to some of the arguments from Labour Back Benchers. It has been suggested that hon. Members who dislike the idea of holding the elections on the same day fear a high poll because we would lose seats in the district council elections. I do not believe that to be true. We all welcome the principle of high polls in district council elections. We wish that all council elections had the 70 per cent. poll that we expect in general elections. If we bring the matter down to party terms, I believe that the Conservatives will do much better in my area if we have a high poll in the district council elections. No doubt some Labour Members believe that their party will do better in other areas, but that is not a consideration in the minds of those of us who dislike the idea of having the elections on the same day.
Some of my hon. Friends have argued that there will be great confusion in the minds of the electors. I do not agree, although I must say that if we wanted contrasting colours for the ballot papers to enable the electorate to distinguish between them, we should not have chosen white and light grey. It is difficult to think of two colours that are more similar. However, I am sure that the electors will manage to distinguish between them and I do not see that as a major problem.
There may, however, be some confusion at the polling stations. Obviously it will take longer to fill in two ballot papers and there could be problems when queues develop, perhaps only a few minutes before the polling stations close.

Mr. Cormack: Some of us have submitted a manuscript amendment which will solve that problem if it is accepted.

Mr. Moate: It is a mechanical problem and is not fundamental to the principle of what we are debating. A significant principle is involved, and the Government should have thought more than twice about introducing a considerable constitutional innovation when they do not have the moral authority to do so at this stage in their life.
The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister should have bent over backwards to avoid such an innovation in the last stages of this Parliament. There are arguments in favour of holding several elections on the same day and arguments in favour of fixed-term elections, giving us county council, district council and general election polls on the same day, but we should not be debating those in the context of the deadline that we are facing.
The Government should have tried for other options—and there are still other options open to them. One option was not to have gone for a Thursday poll but to have arranged the general election for Monday 30 April or Tuesday 1 May. That would have avoided many of the problems that will be imposed on electors and returning officers.
Another option, and one which I would have preferred, was for the Government to have gone for 26 April. Had the will been there, they could have done that. Looking at the business before the House this week, it is difficult to believe that the arrangements for a general election on 26 April could not have been put through the House on Friday and Saturday last week if the Government had wanted it. It should have been possible.
Even though they rejected that, they could have gone for the following Monday or Tuesday. There is no constitutional obligation to have a general election on a Thursday. It is only a convention, and I do not suppose that many electors even think about whether the vote is on a Tuesday or a Thursday. I understand that once the proclamation has been issued we are bound to that Thursday and we therefore have to face the other option set out in the amendment, namely, the deferment of the district council elections.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. I recognise that we shall not please all the district council candidates. Many would regret a deferment. They want to get their elections over, just as we want to get the general election over. However, in the interests of the electors and our voting system, there is a case for deferring the district council elections so that they take place on the same day as the parish council elections.
I base my argument on the confusion that I believe will occur on the night of the count. I am not saying that that confusion cannot be avoided. It will be avoided. It will have to be avoided. However, it will be avoided only at the cost of immense pressure on the returning officer, his staff, the scrutineers and the party workers. The strain on that fairly small band will be considerable.
I do not wish to advance a partisan argument, but I suspect that in many areas the Conservative Party is considerably stronger than the Labour Party. However, I suspect that there will be a great strain on many of the local Conservative parties. In general elections we often find that candidates in local elections are the party workers who act, for example, as scrutineers. On the night of the count they will have to be divided between several counting stations. That means that the parties will have to produce a large number of scrutineers. I do not suppose that many of them will be able to do so. That problem could be avoided.
There are arguments for having elections on the same day, but I do not think that anybody could invent a dafter system than bringing all the ballot boxes to one centre, spending a couple of hours splitting the papers, resealing the ballot boxes and sending them around the countryside in the middle of the night to different destinations, where they will be counted by exhausted workers who have worked all day in some other capacity. It may have made sense to have an electronic system and computers, but a nonsensical procedure is being applied to our voting system.
It is thoroughly undesirable that at the moment when we want clarity and absolute confidence in the accuracy of the count there should be introduced an


element that is totally chaotic, undesirable and avoidable.
The Government should not have introduced such a measure in their last days in office. It is an innovation that should be debated at leisure. It is a major constitutional change. It is not a proposal that a dying Government should introduce in their last couple of days in office. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will press his amendment to a Division. I hope that there will be sufficient support for it to secure its passage. That will force the Government to think again and, presumably, to introduce a short Bill tomorrow, which would pass through the House quickly, to defer district council elections for three weeks.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I shall intervene only briefly because most of the ground that I had in mind has already been covered adequately.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) says about the apparent obsession for having elections on Thursdays. There should not be that obsession, because it is not so long since many elections were held on other days. Occasionally other days are selected even now for local and district by-elections, and those elections proceed perfectly satisfactorily.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for saying that he will bring the Bill into line with what the Home Secretary said about parish nominations. I apologise for not tabling my amendment at the proper time and for having to table a manuscript amendment. When I read the Bill I thought that the reference to the poll being postponed meant that an amendment was not required and that nominations would stand. I remain of the opinion that the legal interpretation that no amendment is required holds good and that nominations already handed in will be valid for the postponed poll. I do not pretend that my legal knowledge is better than that of the Home Office draftsmen. If they think that an amendment is needed, Ministers must bring one forward.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) suggested that those who argue against having more than one

election on the same day believe that there is some failing in the intelligence of the voters that will cause difficulties in voting in two elections on the same occasion. That is not so. The argument of my hon. Friends and myself is based upon the confusion that may occur in the counting and the necessity for the counting to be impeccable and beyond question afterwards so that no one may argue about the result of the election or about what has happened.
The confusion will arise not because there are two elections on the same day but because the boundaries of parliamentary seats are not coterminous with the boundaries of local government areas. My constituency is an example although not an extreme example. There are two districts within the constituency, one full district and one that is part of another. The Stroud district, which is the part, has part of another constituency within it. Many ballot papers will need to be verified in one place and counted in another for district purposes.
It seems that district council candidates will not be able to witness the verification of their ballot papers. Their agents and representatives will not be available when the verification is carried out.
When we turn our attention to the amendment, I expect that we shall be told that it is difficult to have the candidates for the districts in attendance in person for the verification. I understand that. That is because they will be required to be in two places at once. Secondly, there are a large number involved. The numbers involved in addition to the ordinary parliamentary count will be extremely difficult to manage without problems.
It is the problem of boundaries, especially now that parliamentary boundaries are considerably out of date in comparison with the local election boundaries, that is the nub of the difficulty. For that reason, and because of the confusion of the counting and the necessity for the counting to be beyond question, I am inclined to support the amendment. If necessary, I shall support the amendment that may be moved in Committee that has the effect of holding district council elections on a different day.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: There is one reason that has not been given so far in this short debate why the district council elections should be postponed, The reason is that increasingly in the past 50 years we have seen a polarisation in district elections. The Labour Party initially brought politics into local government. Previously individuals had been elected more because they were known in their localities than because they were representatives of political parties.
It may sound an unusual argument to advance in the run-up to a general election, but we must remember that we stand not only for our parties but for all individuals in our constituencies. I recognise that there are some who do not wish to carry party political labels in local elections. There are those who wish to stand as independents and rate-payers.
I regret that by confusing the general election with district councils the Government are putting forward a formula that will inevitably mean that those who do not wish to carry a party label in district elections will be squeezed out. The polarisation will be increased. For that reason I, too, support the amendment. The district elections should be postponed.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. John: I do not know whether the party that ultimately gave house room to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain is exactly the best equipped to start complaining about the introduction of party politics into local government. As the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was not in the Chamber for a considerable part of the debate, I propose to deal no further with his intervention.
There are two major matters and many smaller ones that need to be answered arising from the debate. I hope that I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy if I do not manage to cover them all. Except for one brief but commented upon absence during the debate, I have heard most of the main arguments.
First, when the ballot papers were seen by those in the Chamber, the argument about the difficulty of making a distinction between them ceased to have its original stridency.
The Opposition, who seem to be finding excuses or reasons where none exist,

commented on the colour of the papers. All three political parties were consulted. This was the only colour upon which they were prepared to agree. That is not conclusive. However, it is an indication of the difficulty of choosing a non-partisan colour and of the consultations that took place over a short period. Apart from the colour, the lines around the paper are a sufficient indication of the distinction between the two. Thirdly, the person going into the polling booth will, in most cases, be able to read "District Council Election" on top of the paper. That ballot paper will be completely different from the parliamentary paper. It will be distinct in its own right.

Mr. David Howell: Some of us are not worried so much about the distinction in the polling booth as about the distinction when the folded papers are poured on to the table at the count. For example, the Minister may think that I hold in my hand the district council polling slip. However, I am holding the district council polling slip with the parliamentary polling slip folded inside. It will he natural for many people to go into the polling booth, make their marks on the two papers, fold them together and put them in the box. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss this point too lightly. I hope that when the Government send out a new combined notice of guidance they will make it clear that voters should be advised to put their papers separately into the ballot box and not fold them together.

Mr. John: The papers must be unfolded and verified.
The argument has been put on the other level. It was said that the poor hapless voter, suffering from cataracts, with severe defects of vision, will not be able, in the poor light which obtains in most polling stations, to differentiate between the two types. Now, apparently, it is said that the people responsible for the count will suffer from these defects. We have considered this problem. I do not think that it will be a problem. The ballot papers are sufficently distinct for us not to run into this difficulty.
I do not suppose that I shall be able to answer the second major point to the satisfaction of those determined to vote for the Liberal reasoned amendment. I do not imagine that argument sways many


votes in the House. Nevertheless, it deserves to be attempted.
I come to the question of why it is not possible for the local elections to be postponed and what would be the effect if the Bill were defeated. If the amendment is carried, the district council elections must be held, under section 43 of the Local Government Act 1972, on the first Thursday in May. The proclamation of the general election next Saturday could not be made, for practical reasons—for example, the doubling of the number of imprints. We are talking about the postponement of the general election.
The second point was why a general election should not be held on 26 April, especially if we sat on Friday and Saturday. However, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) unfortunately came too late to the debate to appreciate the full subtlety of the point. The proclamation would have to be made on a Saturday. If we had sat last Saturday, it would already have been too late. In practical politics, it was impossible for that to happen: 3 May was the first proper date on which the election could have been held. The Opposition fulminated in favour of a general election and a quick opportunity to test their unpopularity in the country. However, in our view it was proper that the election should be held on 3 May.
I say this with diffidence. There was an underlying tenor in some of the contributions to the debate which devalued the intelligence of the electorate. It would be otherwise if we had never held two elections on the same day. We now merely seek to substitute two elections of one kind for two elections of another. We had intended to hold community and council elections for which there would have been many candidates. We apparently did not find the great traumas over which the Opposition have agonised for some hours.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister virtually told the House that if the amendment were carried, and the Second Reading defeated, that would mean that the general election of 3 May would be postponed. What is to prevent the Government from saying tomorrow, with a simple Bill, that they will postpone the district elections for three weeks?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the process has already been put in train for local elections. That was done on Thursday last under the statutory procedures laid down by the Local Government Act 1972.
Having heard those who sought to find reasons, I have no confidence that any supplemental or replacing Bill would have any different fate in this House from today's Bill.

Mr. Moate: The Minister dismissed 26 April. He said that the following Thursday was the first proper day on which an election could be held. What is improper about the Monday, or Tuesday 1 May?

Mr. John: I was coming to that point. It is amazing how, for the purposes of argument, hon. Members may say that those involved may at one and the same time be exhausted and totally fresh. It is said that the counters, the scrutineers and the returning officers will be absolutely exhausted if the district and parliamentary elections are held on the same day. But it is also said that they may exist in an almost permanent state of election, with polling on Tuesday, counting on the Wednesday and parliamentary elections on the Thursday, with no tiredness or jaded outlook on life. That is naive. It is totally unrealistic to think that local elections or general elections held two days before the other may not have severe and unlooked-for effects upon the other.
I now deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) about the question of staff tiredness and the delays that may occur, and whether we could delay a count, once undertaken, if it appeared from all the circumstances that fatigue was creeping in. Under rule 46(5) of the parliamentary election rules, counting may be delayed between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. if the election agents agree. Therefore, an election may be stopped for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The most difficult point was raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others. I refer to the sending away of ballot papers that are proper to one form of election to another place or to another area. I hope to be helpful. First, there is the verification procedure. I think that may eliminate the vast majority of problems.


Secondly, immediately the officials working on another count discover a package in the wrong box, they may communicate with their counterparts in the other rooms, or other places even, to secure the correction of this position. That is of special importance where there is likely to be a recount.
We would propose, on page 4 of annex A, in the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman referred, to insert a sentence asking returning officers to take account, in the sending away or the disposition of the ballot papers, of the possibility of a recount in their area. It would be known in advance—except in a few very unusual circumstances—where there was the likelihood of the most closely contested elections. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that somewhat helpful.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am worried not about his putting in such a reasonable instruction as he has suggested in the circular but that we are still left with schedule 11 to the Bill, which says that after each ballot paper account has been verified,
The containers shall then be delivered to the returning officer for the election of district councillors".
As I read it, that gives a statutory direction to the returning officer which removes discretion from him. I am not asking the Minister of State now to reply aye or nay. I have tabled a manuscript amendment to which we can come later. I merely ask him to have in mind that, however good the intentions expressed in the circular, if they are at variance with what is said in what will then be the Act, it will not be possible for that discretion to be exercised.

Mr. John: As I understand it, on the ordinary meaning of the word and on the interpretation of the statute, "then" means "thereafter". It does not involve a mandatory duty which juxtaposes the finish and the sending away. However, I will look into that point for the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the use of the mark. Rule 20 merely says that the official mark shall perforate the ballot, and does not give any further specification. If real confusion

were to arise, we would issue further guidance upon this point, but we have no evidence at the moment of such confusion. That is why the elections unit was set up. For the hon. Gentleman's information, I point out that it was not set up on Saturday. Those who contacted my right hon. Friend's private office were referred to the responsible officials in my Department and received advice over the weekend, so that it really was only a question of having contacted my right hon. Friend's private office rather than going through the elections unit. But the unit will be fully operational this week and will be available for advice.
One hon. Member thought that polling hours might be extended in all elections, including the succeeding parish or Community elections, for the longer period, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. That is not so. A cursory reading of clause 1 shows that it is limited to these parliamentary and district council elections.
I have made inquiries concerning shortage of staff. There is no shortage of staff and there will be no difficulty caused by the burden of this work. Indeed, I understand that the work at polling stations is a much sought-after prize in many parts of the country. The only complaints I ever receive are that certain favoured retired people get preference over other people who are equally capable of doing the job and who are equally keen to do it.

Mr. Cormack: Concerning staff and hours, what will happen to those who are at the polling station at 10 p.m. and who, because of the queue and the extra clerical work, have not had their ballot papers and voted? Can they still do so?

Mr. John: That is a totally different point and I shall deal with it in due course.
The hon. Member for Hampstead, (Mr. Finsberg) raised a very difficult point with me, and we have given it serious consideration. One of the problems which many hon. Members do not take into account is the amount of thought that is given to these matters in places such as Hampstead and the amount of information we receive. A similar point has been raised about Camden, which is in a similar position.
We have given very serious consideration to the hours of the poll and have


consulted the draftsmen. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and at this stage we are unable to give a promise that it can be put right. However, I will continue to give it some thought, without making any commitment whatever, to see whether it can be changed, even now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) mentioned ballot papers and said that he hoped that the size of print used for party nomenclature would be larger in the future. I do not think that that is exactly germane to the present Bill. When he sought to correct the descriptions on the ballot paper, he was in error, because the party description is not a fixed party description. It is merely an injunction that not more than four words should be used when making a designation.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) mentioned the presiding officers' fees and said that he hoped that the minimum set down in the circular would be raised to take account of the extra responsibility. We have been in discussion with the representatives of the officials concerned. We have agreed that presiding officers who have a single election—that is, one without a district council election —should have £18, and that it should be £22 for a combined election, with poll clerks receiving £24 and £32 respectively. That is above the minimum quoted, and it is a recognition that extra responsibility and extra work are involved.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) mentioned his experience. We all have our different experience and I suspect that we generalise from the particular. The experience we have seems to be transmitted into a national experience. It is not my experience, from having visited my own and several other constituencies during elections, that there are the vast queues between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think, therefore, that we have quite the position that he envisaged. The returning officers have been asked in the circular to have regard to the various problems when they are considering the number of staff re

Division No. 110]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Freud, Clement
Hodgson, Robin


Durant, Tony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Hooson, Emlyn

quired and the sort of provision that is needed. None of us would want a person who has gone to the poll to be denied, on a technicality, the right to cast his vote.

Mr. English: When I mentioned this point, I was not suggesting that the Bill should be amended. I was merely saying that, where the circular talks about ballot boxes, there should be another paragraph saying that the Home Office will pay for extra little huts, when these are the only places at which it is possible to vote when queues arise. I am hoping that my hon. Friend will say that the Home Office will pay for the extra necessary equipment.

Mr. John: We have said that we are taking reasonable steps. As all these regulations have a Welsh connotation, I wonder whether, if we were to talk about "further tai bach", it would be widely understood in Wales in terms of the little hut.
One cannot always anticipate every problem. Let us be absolutely fair and say that there has not been a general election yet in which there has been no complaint, in which everything has moved perfectly smoothly and in_ which everything has gone without protest being made.

Mr. Cope: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. John: No. I propose to finish now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe that every hon. Member has had an opportunity to make his point on Second Reading, and we still have the Committee stage before us.
We have made every provision for people properly to exercise their franchise. The British electorate are not so ignorant, naive or capable of deception that they will be confused by these ballot papers. They will cast their votes properly according to their democratic duty. I think that many hon. Members who doubt this fact will be pleasantly surprised on 3 May.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 137.

Knox, David
Pardoe, John



Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Colin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter
Mr Peter Bottemley and


Moate, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Patrick Cormack.


NOES


Allaun, Frank
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hunter, Adam
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bean, R. E.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
John, Brynmoor
Rooker, J. W.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Buchanan, Richard
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carmichael, Nell
Kilfedder, James
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Lee, John
Snape, Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tinn, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ward, Michael


English, Michael
McKay Allen (Penistone)
Watkins, David


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Weitzman, David


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Whitehead, Phillip


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Woodall, Alec


Gourlay, Harry
Molyneaux, James
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.



Hardy, Peter
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. Alf Bates and


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order this day.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to postpone certain parish and community council elections, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenses of the returning officers attributable to the postponement.—[Mr. Tinn.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Bill considered in Committee, pursuant to Order this day.

.[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

POSTPONEMENT OF POLL AT PARISH OR COMMUNITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS

7.50 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman: The first two amendments selected are the manuscript amendments A and B. Amendment A, in the names of the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), Eastleigh (Mr. Price), Faversham (Mr. Moate), Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Harborough (Mr. Farr), is as follows: in page 1, line 22, at end insert
All nominations submitted by the due date already announced, April 5th, shall be valid nominations for the postponed elections.
Amendment B, in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), is as follows: in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
(3) Any nomination submitted for an election which is postponed as a result of this Act shall, if otherwise valid and if not withdrawn, be valid for the postponed election.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move manuscript amendment A, in page 1, line 22, at end insert:
All nominations submitted by the due date already announced, April 5th, shall be valid nominations for the postponed elections.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take manuscript amendment B.

Mr. Cormack: I shall not detain the Committee for long, because the Minister of State has already been kind enough to indicate that he entirely accepts the sense of my amendment. It is moved simply because a number of us are very concerned—I appreciate that the Minister accepts this concern—that the nominations of people who have been properly nominated for the parish council elections, nominations that are in by 5 April,

should remain valid. As the Home Secretary explained this afternoon, those nominations would have been invalid as the Bill stands. We believe that that would be wrong. Although we accept that there might well be time for other nominations to be lodged, it would be a grave disservice to those who perhaps spent considerable time having their nominations submitted if they suddenly found that by the stroke of a pen they had to start all over again.

Mr. John: As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said, I have accepted the principle of the amendment, but I prefer the wording of the amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), and I hope that the Committee will accept that. We shall put right in another place any deficiencies of drafting that may subsequently appear.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Manuscript amendment made: B in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
(3) Any nomination submitted for an election which is postponed as a result of this Act shall, if otherwise valid and if not withdrawn, be valid for the postponed election."—[Mr. Cope.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

USE OF FREE POSTAL DELIVERY SERVICE FOR CIRCULATION OF ELECTION

LITERATURE RELATING TO DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS

"Any candidate in the parliamentary election may include in their free postal delivery provided by the Post Office election literature relating to candidates in the district council elections."—[Mr. Beith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think that the purpose of the clause will gain general acceptance. Because I was called away during the Home Secretary's speech, I do not know whether he


made any comment on the matter in the latter part of it.
It seems likely to me that two situations will arise quite commonly in the unusual circumstance of having two different elections on the same day. One is that some parties in some places may decide to issue joint election addresses, in which the names of local election candidates appear alongside the name of the parliamentary candidate. There are areas in which that is possible.
I am not recommending that course of action to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and I shall not be following it myself, but it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility and one that it would be difficult to exclude. I take it that the legislation as it stands does not exclude it. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify whether the literature could serve both purposes and that therefore the expenses could be divided under apportionment between the expenses of the two election campaigns.
I take it that there is no objection under the Bill or any existing legislation to the literature's being included in the same envelope. What happens if separate literature for the parliamentary and local election candidates in the same area is included in the same envelope? We wish to make clear on the face of the Bill that that should be permitted. It would seem to be of reasonable assistance to political parties and those involved in organising the elections, and a convenience to the voters. The constant stream of literature through the post day by day would at least be in a little more organised form if two sets of literature came in the same envelope.
Therefore, I press the case that that should be explicitly permitted under the Bill. I ask the Minister to make clear whether the Bill as it stands precludes that and whether it precludes literature bearing the names of both parliamentary and local candidates on the same sheet of paper. Our amendment presumes that joint literature would be permitted but implies that separate literature within the same envelope might not be permitted and might need the explicit permission which would be within the Bill if the clause were carried.
I hope that the Minister will assist the Committee by explaining precisely what

the law would be if the Bill passed in its present form. I hope that he will sympathetically consider the argument that the law should explicitly provide for the two kinds of literature to be contained in the same free post envelope.

8 p.m.

Mr. John: I have to resist the Liberal amendment and to tell the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that at present, as he will know, parliamentary candidates are entitled to free postage and local election candidates are not so entitled. The Post Office would, therefore, not accept communications relating to other than parliamentary elections. I think that it was the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) who was talking earlier about introducing major constitutional issues in the last days of a Parliament. The new clause would involve a considerable innovation, which I do not believe would be required purely for the purposes of 3 May.
Therefore, because I think that it is outside the law as at present framed, I would not advise that these joint election addresses should be introduced.
Secondly, although the cost aspect of the free post might be exaggerated, the administrative burden would be considerable, because, as has been pointed out this evening by a number of hon. Members, local government districts and parliamentary constituencies are not coterminous. Indeed, they are still overlapping. Therefore, I do not believe that that would be a satisfactory position.
But there is even a further point, which I ask hon. Members to accept. As I understand the new clause, it would apply where a local government candidate had a counterpart of the same party standing for a parliamentary election who was willing to put the local government candidate's material into his particular envelope. This may draw distinctions between those candidates of whom parliamentary candidates may approve, and, therefore, include their literature, and those whom they may exclude. The excluded candidates would have either an advantage or a disadvantage, according to how one views the popularity of the Member or parliamentary candidate concerned. But, even more so, independent candidates who have no counterparts at parliamentary level would be at


a distinct disadvantage in the election from having to fight the election against major parties which would have the facility of the free post, which they would not have.
It is for those insuperable reasons that I recommend that the Committee should not accept the new clause.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Quite apart from the merits of the proceedings, am I not right in believing that the new clause does not fall within the money resolution, and that to perform this function at public expense without the money resolution falls without the Standing Orders of the House?

Mr. John: The money resolution authorises payment out of the Consolidated Fund. The free post facility is paid for out of that fund, so I believe that technically this would come within the money resolution. However, I understand the drafting problems only too well, and I do not believe in taking those technical points. I think that there are many more substantial points of principle against the new clause, which is why I advise the Committee not to accept it.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend the Minister has put forward some doubts about the merits of the new clause. I would support it from my own local knowledge and experience. We all have to consider how an amendment would affect our constituencies. We all represent various kinds of constituencies. Mine happens to be an urban constituency. It is very small in area. My constituency party covers exactly the same area as the four wards within it. We do not go over anyone else's boundaries—parishes, metropolitan counties or anything else.
I should like to put two points to my hon. Friend. In this coming campaign I shall certainly be saying that my duties as my constituents' Member of Parliament and my effectiveness as their Member have been limited because there is a difference between those who control the city council and those who control this national Parliament. In Liverpool we have a city council controlled by the Liberals and the Conservatives. One would expect that their policies would be exactly the same as those supported on their Benches here at Westminster. There-

fore, what the Liberal and Conservative alliance does in the Liverpool city council inevitably affects what the Members of Parliament for West Derby, Walton, Garston or anywhere else there can do.
There happen to be two elections on one day. They are interdependent. The city council's policies have effects on Parliament, and Parliament's policies have effects on the city council.
I shall have to say "The Government decided that these two elections would be held on the same day." It cannot be said to me "But you must not say anything at all about the Liverpool city council. You stick to the parliamentary matters and we shall stick to the other matters. You keep your election addresses quite separate."

Mr. John: I do not say that my hon. Friend may not refer to local government matters in his parliamentary election literature. Of course he may do so and will do so. What I am saying is that local government candidates cannot be included as addressing the electorate about local government matters within the free post facility.

Mr. Ogden: That is the whole purpose of this debate. It is to find out what can and cannot be done. Therefore, I can refer briefly, just in passing, to the difficulties which the Liberals and Conservatives have caused me as the Member of Parliament for West Derby. I can also refer, if I wish, to the help which ought to come from my constituents, from my Labour candidates in Dovecot, Gillmoss, Croxteth and Clubmoor. I can ask my electors to help me in my duties as Member of Parliament by supporting my Labour candidates in the local government elections.
I can, I believe—I want this absolutely on record—put forward my normal voters' guide, which usually says "We are not sending you poll cards this time, but if you were to support me"—and I can—I take this as important—ask on the back of the guide for them to vote—

Mr. English: Generally or specifically?

Mr. Ogden: Specifically. This is what I want to find out. I can, because it is my election address and literature, say "If you want to help me in this parliamentary election and in my duties as a Member of Parliament in the next Parliament, vote Ogden for MP, and vote


Murphy, or Lafferty or Westbury"—or anyone else who happens to be named in my guide; just as I can say in the middle of that "If you vote for the Tories you will be voting for trouble." However, I gather that I cannot include in my free post an election address from a local government candidate.
I think that that would be the situation as outlined. But provided that I am within the limits regarding weight, decided by the regulations, as to what may be included—I am not advertising Little—woods Pools, as I was a little while ago—that would be valid. The parliamentary candidate can refer to that. We can do it in whatever variations we like. But we cannot actually include in our free post something which is only the direct concern of the local election candidates.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say that that is right and is the correct interpretation. I would still support the other interpretation, because the really important thing, for both the Post Office and postmen, is how much postmen will have to lug around on their shoulders. If there are to be 50,000 envelopes going around in West Derby, Liverpool, provided that each envelope weighs no more than it would otherwise have weighed and it is decent literature—we all have various ideas about what that is—and if it is political, and provided that the weight limit is adhered to, I cannot see the Post Office objecting. If we wanted to put half a pound of postage in an envelope, clearly that would cause difficulties.
However, these two campaigns will inevitably be interlocked. I see no good reason why the free post should not be used for this purpose.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has raised a point that is utterly relevant. I understand the peculiar corcumstances of Liverpool. I shall not go into those. However, my hon. Friend is obviously quite right in saying that the Post Office would not refuse an envelope that was within the Post Office regulations.
I think, however, that my hon. Friend—possibly with his tongue in his cheek—was expressing his view of the law in a rather extensive way. I should have thought that the matter of electoral expenses, which has nothing to do with the

Post Office but a great deal to do with the Representation of the People Acts, is relevant here. If my hon. Friend wanted to include the names of his local candidates, for example, I should have thought that that would mean that if there were, for the sake of argument, 20 of them, one twenty-first part of the expenses should be his and the rest of the expenses should be divided amongst the 20 people. Also, I should have thought that he should put a stamp on the envelope, because he could not use the free post facility for them.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend is talking about separate literature. I was saying that I had four wards and that in each of those four wards there would be Ogden for Member of Parliament and Murphy or someone else for local councillor. If anyone can work out how much it costs to put one additional word on one card, he will be extremely clever.

Mr. English: We are both asking the Minister, who no doubt will tell us shortly, but, as I understand the law, it is that if a piece of literature promotes a given candidate, as distinct from being a general piece of literature—we none of us charge the cost of the political parties' morning press conferences in London and split it amongst the constituencies—it must be charged to that candidate's expenses. That is how I understand it, though we are really asking the question in the course of discussing this new clause. But an hon. Member cannot in the first place put that piece of literature into the free post because the free post is only for parliamentary candidates—in other words, for himself. He has to put a stamp on it. Secondly, since it mentions all those names, the cost of printing it would have to be divided between all those names.

Mr. Beith: The answers to the two questions are not necessarily the same. It does not follow that because a piece of literature refers to the candidature of both the parliamentary candidate and the local candidate and bears their names, that piece of literature cannot be accepted in the free post. It follows that the expense of producing that literature must be apportioned between the candidates, but it does not follow that it cannot be transmitted through the free post.

Mr. English: I think it does, because the free post relates only to parliamentary


candidates. That is said somewhere in the legislation.
But, like all hon. Members who have contributed so far to this debate, I must express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for moving the new clause. I do not necessarily agree with it. I rather tend to agree with the Minister of State. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has raised a matter of the utmost substance which we must clear up.
May we have a clear answer from the Minister on two questions? First, in relation to almost any literature—but the election address is relevant to the new clause—if it is joint, has it to be divided by the number of candidates mentioned in terms of cost? Secondly, if it is joint, can it be included in the parliamentary free post? Those are the basic questions, and that is really all we want to know.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Any new idea always frightens the Home Office. However, I am not sure that the arguments against the new clause are wholly valid. There seems to be one argument that probably carries the day. But if two pieces of paper are put into an election envelope, in my view it cannot make any difference to the question of expenses. If one leaflet which goes into the election envelope names more than one candidate—the general election candidate and the local election candidate—no doubt there will have to be an apportionment of the expenses. But that is not what we are arguing about. We are arguing about whether it is desirable, on this one occasion when both elections are being held on the same day, to avoid all the trouble of distributing local election literature by putting it into an envelope which in any case will go out from the parties to each of the electors.
The argument against that, apparently, is that there is some disparity between the boundaries of a parliamentary district constituency and the boundaries of the local districts. But even if that is true—and it is not true in many cases, including that of York—this is a permissive power. It would allow the parliamentary candidate in each parliamentary constituency to take such number of notices for the local districts as were necessary

for the representation in that local authority district. That could be done and would have to be done by the party machine. The party machine would write up the envelopes, and the party machine would fill them. If there was 50 per cent. of one ward in one parliamentary constituency and 50 per cent. in another, the party would divide up the allocation of literature between the different envelopes. That is a problem for the party, but it is not a problem for the Home Office and it certainly is not a problem for the Post Office.
As for the weight and the burden that would fall on postmen, there was a time when my richer Conservative opponent made a six-fold leaflet as distinct from the usual three-fold leaflet. If that sixfold leaflet were divided in two, that would represent the position being asked for by the new clause—it would be possible to put in two separate leaflets. The only real argument against it is that suggested by the Minister that acceptance of the amendment would mean that it would apply only to those parties which were nominating candidates for the general election as well as for the local elections and that in that sense it would discriminate against those who were candidates only in the local elections.
That can be overcome by allowing on this occasion the local government candidates to have a free election distribution and thereby give local government candidates the opportunity of distributing if they will.
I gather that it has been argued that that would be dangerous, partly because it sets a precedent. Precedents do not have to be followed. This is a wholly unusual situation. I do not suppose that the House would want to suggest that in future years we would want free distribution of all local government election material. That case has to be argued at any rate in the future. It does not preempt the possibility of our not following this precedent in the future. So I think that that is out of the way.
The second argument is that it would encourage splinter parties or small parties of which the House would disapprove, and the House does not have to question very long to find out which those might be. It is argued that acceptance of the new clause would tend to give them some


encouragement by giving them the opportunity to distribute their literature. If that is the case, surely we have to recognise that the real problem is the cost of printing. The likelihood of a small party of this nature being able to print 50,000 leaflets at considerable expense seems to me to deter all but the major parties from doing it, and the likelihood is that the smaller party would not want to use the free distribution facility.

Mr. Max Madden: Has my hon. Friend not overlooked another group? Would he not agree that if we were to adopt this suggestion, we could be faced with a number of commercial organisations which would see the opportunity of having commercial brochures and other commercial material circulated free through the post?

Mr. Lyon: I was coming to that matter. It was my next point. It is possible for Oxo to put up a candidate in my constituency at the general election and get a free distribution of Oxo advertising.

Mr. Rathbone: They might win.

Mr. Lyon: They would not. There is no one more virile in my constituency than myself. The suggestion that this is a real argument against the proposal overlooks the fact that the danger exists at a general election. If any major advertising firm wanted to carry out a wholesale free distribution, it would put up Mr. Bloggs as representing X soap powder and give a distribution. It has never happened in the past. I do not see why it should happen now. If it is a danger, it exists for a general election as well as for a local authority area.
The real problem seems only that the Liberal amendment does not encompass the case of the independent or small party which puts up a local authority candidate but does not put up a general election candidate. I accept that this is difficult and that it would be unfair to that candidate or that party. But we cannot say that we cannot therefore proceed.
We could frame an amendment in the other place, which would cover that position. The great advantage of this proposal is that a lot of party workers throughout the country would bless our name if they found that they could put the local authority address in the same envelope as that for the parliamentary

constituency which has been written and is to be sent out.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will the Minister, before replying to the debate on the new clause, examine the metropolitan county areas, such as the St. Helens district council, which includes parts of six parliamentary constituencies, each with a separate Member of Parliament? Each will have a candidate at the next parliamentary election. How would the Minister overcome this, if he concedes what is asked in the new clause, without involving the other Members of Parliament, who could not very well list candidates of the Labour Party in their own literature, in view of the fact that such a mixed bag of us represent different parts of the metropolitan county area?

Mr. Beith: This debate has been important and useful. It has revealed that there is a lot of confusion on points related to this matter. It is an illustration that the House should never gallop through legislation under any circumstances without looking at individual clauses. I raise the matter not to delay the proceedings but because there is genuine confusion, on which hon. Members have enlarged. I would like to underline some points so that we can be sure that when the Minister, who I see wishes to speak, intervenes again, we can clear them up.
I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). It could fairly be assumed from the debate that there is nothing to preclude a parliamentary candidate from saying on his election address "I want my supporters to vote also for the candidates of my party in the local elections". There is nothing to preclude his saying that.

Mr. Spriggs: Unspecified.

Mr. Beith: Unspecified. Is there anything to preclude his going on to say "These candidates are Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith and Mr. So-on-So"? He could issue his address in editions to make sure that the right names appeared in each area. We must make certain what, if anything, precludes him from doing that. We have also to clarify whether that gives rise to issues of apportioning of election expenses. Even if it does, that does not


indicate that the exercise cannot be carried out and that the Post Office would be obliged to refuse that literature. All that has been established by the Minister is that the law, as it stands, would not allow the Post Office to accept separate literature to be put into the same envelope and that this course would be precluded unless the amendment were carried. On those specific issues, we must have guidance.
I should like to mention a case where the problem would be even worse. The candidate for the parliamentary election might happen also to be a candidate in the local election. That situation is even more likely to arise because notices of election have already gone out for the district council elections and the process of nomination is under way. People have declared themselves in some areas. One thinks particularly of the candidate of a smaller party in a given constituency who perhaps does not expect to become the Member of Parliament but has high hopes of becoming a councillor in his ward and is standing at both levels, having originally expected the elections to be on different days. What is the position of that person if he says "I am your candidate for Parliament and also for the metropolitan district council"? Would the Post Office have to refuse his literature if he said that he was a candidate for the latter?
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty and do not criticise him for seeking advice from behind him as quickly as he can, but we must ensure that we do not let such a Bill go through, with the prospect of an election campaign already under way, without clearing up such matters.
The argument of disparity between parliamentary constituencies and district council boundaries is irrelevant, because where the disparity is considerable no party will wish to engage in this exercise, or it will have to be very highly organised if it is prepared to do so. That is a problem for the parties. No one is obliged to include separate pieces of election literature in his post. In a situation like that described by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), no doubt the parties would not even attempt to do it.
The stronger argument is that of the Minister about the advantage conferred

on parties and organisations fighting at both levels. That makes me not particularly keen to press the Government to concede the general point at stake, but we cannot let this issue rest or pass it to another place, assuming that it is completed in an unhappy state, without clearing up these difficulties.

Mr. John: The great difficulty here is that one is asked for an interpretation of the law, which in the final analysis only the courts can give. All that I can tell hon. Members is that section 79 of the Representation of the People Act, which is devoted to the free post, says that communications must relate to the parliamentary election only.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that the effect of the local government elections would be to inhibit his discharge of his parliamentary duties. In my opinion—it is not and could not be a legal ruling, and he would be unwise to treat it as such—that would permit him to make such a reference as he mentioned. However, if he promoted local government candidates, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is right about the expenditure if for no other reason.

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. John: I have been asked questions, but it seems that hon. Members are not willing to wait for replies before jumping in.
Not only is there that expense problem; the practice might fall foul of section 79.
As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) knows, I do not take drafting points, but I tell my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that it is a bit topsy-turvy to say "I know that it says that any candidate in a parliamentary election may include in the free post local government literature, but we can correct that to say that everybody has the right." That is the tail wagging the dog.
If we are to say that everyone in a local election should have free postal services, we should say so directly and in terms. That means that if a party or an individual does not have a counterpart standing in a parliamentary election he will


fight that election under a grave disadvantage. Whatever else we do, we should try to ensure that those who want to stand for local election should do so on reasonably equal terms.
Secondly, it is by no means unknown—although we would all deny it of our own constituencies—that there are some councillors whose election literature a Member of Parliament would not wish to have in with his. That would discriminate against those people as opposed to all the other party candidates in the area.
I have dealt with the practicalities merely in an ascending scale, but for these reasons I could not recommend the Committee to accept the new clause.

Mr. Ogden: The Minister criticised me for trying to jump in before he had given the answer, but I do not think that I received an answer to my question. I am not sure from what he said whether the regulations and the law about the free post state that it must be for parliamentary purposes—

Mr. Beith: "Only".

Mr. Ogden: —or for parliamentary purposes only. We need some interpretation. I am not asking the Minister to be the Lord Chief Justice or the Court of Appeal and give me an instant decision, but we shall be leaving this place to campaign in elections and we shall be stating many reasons why we want our constituents to give us their support. If we are to say that parliamentary candidates may not refer in their election literature to local government candidates, that amounts to censorship under the law. As a candidate in Liverpool, West Derby, I should need the support of particular people in the local council. This provision would be against that. There are all kinds of reasons within the law, apparently, why I can have the support of my constituents, but I must not say that I ask them to support a friend so that he can help me. Is that the situation?

Mr. English: No, I do not think that it is.

8.30 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has been promoted to ministerial rank. I take it he will give the answer to the question.

Mr. English: I was the only person standing, Sir Myer, and it is—

The First Deputy Chairman: The question was posed to the Minister, not to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was the only person on his feet and it is the Committee stage. The closure has not yet been moved. If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to answer two points at the same time, would it not be convenient for the Committee for that to happen?

The First Deputy Chairman: Yes, but I understood that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who posed the question, was waiting for an answer from the Minister and would then resume his speech. He has a long way to go yet.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With respect, I am not waiting to resume. I have an election campaign to conduct. I do not know what everyone else around here is doing—that is up to him. I want answers.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman seems to have started his election campaign here this evening.

Mr. English: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), got it only half right. Nobody has said that an hon. Member cannot issue a piece of literature with his own name and the names of his candidates on it. All that has been said so far is that if he does so he must divide the cost of printing that piece of literature between the candidates who are named therein. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby wants to send that literature to anybody, he must not use the free parliamentary post but put a stamp on it or have it delivered by hand. That is all that has been said. If he wants to use the free parliamentary post, as I understand it my hon. Friend the Minister said that the section of the Act stipulates that it must be for himself only. Surely that is very simple. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby wishes to do what he obviously does wish to do, he must not use the free parliamentary post. He may use the free parliamentary post only for himself.

Mr. John: Though inadequate, I shall try to help my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) by quoting what, after all, guides all our actions, an Act of Parliament. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby wants certainty, he must test the matter in the courts. While not volunteering to assist him, I think that many of my colleagues would rub their hands at the prospect of my hon. Friend doing that. Section 79(1) is as follows:
A candidate at a parliamentary election shall, subject to regulations … send … one postal communication containing matter relating to the election only. …
In other words, my hon. Friend can certainly say that, as regards his parliamentary election literature, the existence of a local authority inimical to him is a handicap, but he cannot promote the candidature of unnamed people on that list. That is the best I can do for my hon. Friend, short of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords ruling definitively.

Mr. Beith: I can understand the reluctance of the Minister of State to assume a role which is not that of Parliament—namely, interpreting the law. However, we are actually making the law tonight. We are creating an unprecedented situation in which district council elections and parliamentary elections are to take place on the same day. We are making rules for that. That calls for rules on matters which have hitherto not required rules, and it calls into question the interpretation of rules which have sufficed in previous elections.
The Minister has correctly pointed to the likely way in which some of these matters might be interpreted. If there is a very considerable element of doubt we may have to do something about it, either at this stage or subsequent stages of the passage of the Bill.
I put to the Minister the one specific unanswered point arising from what I said earlier, which is the position of the candidate who is a candidate in both elections and who, for example, in the biographical part of his election address has the words printed "I am also" or "Mr. so-and-so is also" a candidate in the district council elections for the area. These words require the Post Office to veto this communication for inclusion in the free post. That situation does not normally arise and it was not envisaged

when we made the law in its present form. It is a situation that is bound to arise at some point in the circumstances we now face.

Mr. John: Two points arise. Section 79(1) is fairly clear. The candidate at a parliamentary election shall send
one postal communication … relating to the election only".
The wording of the Act would seem to rule out the second point that the hon. Member makes.
On his first point, although the coincidence of parliamentary and district council elections is unprecedented, there have been occasions when the general election and a local government by-election have taken place at the same time. The problem was perfectly well coped with then, and if it was then, I am sure that it will be now.

Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend answer a further question? Does he agree that if a piece of literature mentions two or three names, the cost of it should be apportioned between them?

Mr. John: I keep on saying that.

Question put and negatived.

Manuscript New Clause

LATE ISSUE OF BALLOT PAPERS

All electors who are within the precincts of the polling station by 10 p.m. shall be allowed to cast their votes notwithstanding the fact that they may not have been issued with ballot papers at that hour.—[Mr. Cormack.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We referred to this matter during the debate on Second Reading and the Minister of State made certain helpful remarks. However, I should like him to be more forthcoming than he was because this is a disturbing matter. There could be an occasion, since in many areas voters arrive at the polling station at the last minute, where, because of the extra clerical work imposed upon the officials, people who arrive within the due time are still waiting to cast their votes when 10 o'clock strikes.

Mr. Ward: Another problem sometimes arises. In Warmington in 1966, in


that famous election, the lights failed in a polling station. There was an enormous and inordinate delay in getting people through.

Mr. Connack: We could all, from our own experience, refer to cases, perhaps not as spectacular as the one described by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), where a genuine problem has arisen.
Although the genuine problem has been the exception in the past, it may in this election be much more general. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to indicate more fully than he has that there will be precise guidance for returning officers for occasions such as this.
I am not suggesting that we should make it easy for those who turn up late. Anyone who turns up at one second past 10 o'clock has no entitlement to vote. I am concerned for the people, particularly the elderly, who are a little slow in their movements, who turn up in good time but are delayed in voting because of the pressure on the officials.

Mr. John: I apologise to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). I did not realise that this new clause had been selected. I have taken instructions and I understand that the presiding officer has a discretion about people in the polling station at the end of the period. I would rather the situation stayed that way than have this new clause. The new clause states:
All electors within the precincts of the polling station by 10 p.m. shall be allowed to cast their vote notwithstanding the fact that they may not have been issued with ballot papers at that hour.
That would theoretically enable some people to delay the end of the poll almost indefinitely. They might have been in the polling station keeping out of the way or have deliberately delayed taking their ballot papers.
The period from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. is a peculiarly dead period in many areas. I cite my own experience on that. The presiding officer has a discretion about the presence of people in the polling booth at that time. I should prefer that to continue than to lay down a rigid and unworkable rule.

Mr. Cormack: Would that discretion allow the presiding officer to give a ballot paper to an old lady who has genuinely

arrived just before time and who does not have her ballot paper even if it is a minute past 10 p.m.?

Mr. John: Yes. I understand that to be so.

Mr. English: I revert to the problem of what I call "my little huts". They are not much larger than the Welsh "little huts". They have just enough room for the presiding officer and his colleague and for the voter to get in and put his paper into the ballot box.
The queue, therefore, is not within the polling station, as envisaged by my hon. Friend, though it might be within the precincts, depending on the definition of "precincts". These huts are put up in my constituency in areas where there are no convenient buildings to use as polling stations. They are put up where there is no school or building of that kind. It is not customary in my constituency to use houses for polling.
These huts are small, temporary structures. Because they are so small, one cannot have more than one polling station in each structure. It is not possible to split polling stations without providing another hut. The result is that towards the close of the poll—say, in the last hour and a half—there is a queue outside the hut.
My hon. Friend should have answered my previous question. He may not wish to accept this new clause—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Connack) moved it as a probing one—but he must answer the earlier question. If a returning officer is to povide himself—assuming that there is space—with more little huts so that he has more polling stations, the Home Office should finance it.
8.45 p.m.
If that is not so, the queues outside are likely to become longer am not suggesting that it will take every voter twice as long to vote twice, but we can make a reasonable guess that it will take him 50 per cent. longer. What provision is being made to reduce the lengthening queues? There is plenty in the rules of guidance about ballot boxes. I am sure that the remarks of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends about ballot boxes and their ability to hold 3,000 pieces of paper are correct. How does one put one and a


half pints of people into a pint pot? We must consider the limitation of space in a polling station. Before 3 May, my hon. Friend must send out guidance about this problem.

Mr. John: We shall look sympathetically at that problem, which is different from that to which the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) referred.

Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

MODIFICATION OF ELECTION RULES

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 28, leave out
'easily distinguishable in such a manner as the Secretary of State directs'
and insert 'a different colour'.
The amendment deals with the vexed question of distinguishing the two ballot papers. The Secretary of State has already given advice and used specimens for the assistance of the House.
It is important that the ballot papers should be clearly distinguishable to each group of people involved in the elections—the polling station staff, the electors and those who conduct and scrutinise the count. At each stage confusion could be caused.
The returning officers' staff will have the least difficulty in issuing ballot papers, but there is potential for confusion. Electors could be confused, especially when there are common names on both ballot papers. The specimens provided by the Secretary of State used the same names. Confusion can be caused if somebody is standing in both elections and his name appears on both ballot papers.
In district and council elections different coloured ballot papers are often used. That has not caused difficulty, and partisan objections have not been made about the colour of the ballot paper. In the district in which I vote, one of the ballot papers in the combined district and parish elections has usually been an indelicate shade of salmon pink to which no party has objected. It is more clearly distin-

guishable from the other ballot papers than the proposed ballot papers. In a gloomy polling station and to anyone who has fading eyesight, the two ballot papers will not look much different from each other—except that one has a three-line box around the names and the other has not, and that one is headed "Parliamentary Election" and the other is not. There is potential for the elector to be confused and for him to vote for the person that he did not intend to vote for.
The greatest risk of confusion will arise when the boxes are opened and the papers divided. There could be initial confusion or a failure to detect when something has gone wrong as the papers are returned to the boxes. The counting staff will have little difficulty in separating the ballot papers, but if one packet of papers goes astray it will be more difficult to spot the proposed ballot papers than it would be to spot those of a different colour.
Problems could be caused once the parliamentary ballot papers have been separated and counted and a result has been declared. What will happen if a set of ballot papers turns up during the count for the district council elections? What would happen if the parliamentary election result had been declared and 100 ballot papers turned up in different local election ballot boxes?

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Surely that mistake would be spotted at the verification. If the numbers of grey and white papers do not tally when the boxes are opened, the search will take place before the papers are separated.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member's experience of close contests is as great as mine. He must know that these things are not always successfully carried out.
One of my hon. Friends discovered about 1,000 papers after the verification process was supposed to have been completed. That sort of difficulty can arise. In my constituency, the returning officer and his staff have developed a fine skill in these matters. At the end of the count, when the total number of votes cast for each candidate is checked against the number of papers taken from the ballot boxes, any problem can be spotted, but the bundles of votes may not have been properly recorded and allocated at the earlier stage.
The potential for confusion exists and we cannot exclude the possibility that it could lead to the embarrassing situation of ballot papers being found after the result has been declared. A subsequent manuscript amendment may help to deal with the perhaps greater threat that that situation could arise if district council ballot papers are taken away before the count is completed.
One of the ways out of the difficulty would be to make the ballot papers more clearly distinguishable. On the face of it, the Government's specimen ballot papers fall within the terms of my amendment because white and pale grey are different colours, but the purpose of the amendment is to press the Government to make the ballot papers more readily distinguishable.

Mr. John: We could happily play around for several months on the question of the colours of the ballot papers. There is no doubt that if we made a proposal for salmon pink ballot papers, someone would would produce an argument against that. Indeed, there is an argument against placing any reliance on colour. We have to remember that about 2½ per cent. of the population—one in 40—have a red-green colour blindness. Distinct colours are not sufficient.
We have consulted the major parties, including the Liberal Party, and the colours that we propose have commended themselves to the parties. We have also ensured that the district council ballot papers will be distinguishable by putting three lines around the outside of the voting slips. In addition, the words "district council election" appear in fairly bold type at the top of the council voting slips.
An elector has a pretty fine sieving mechanism to go through before he can make a mistake. I do not think that electors or returning officers and their staffs will make more mistakes. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) cited many mistakes that had been made in the past, but they are examples of human error occurring with the normal parliamentary ballot papers and no risk of confusion. I do not believe that the distinctive markings and colouring that we propose increase the possibility of mistakes.
The wording of the Bill, which refers to "easily distinguishable" and does not tie distinctions merely to colour but allows for distinctions in printing and the boxing in of some papers, in preferable.

Mr. Beith: The Minister is correct in saying that the Act has a better form of words. The purpose of putting down the amendment was to get the matter explored and to put on record my view, which is shared by some returning officers, among others, that we must try harder to make the ballot papers more distinguishable in a variety of ways. If the Minister of State will look again at the style of ballot papers that he suggests should be used, I am sure he will agree that he could do more. However, I see no need to change the wording of the Act and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rathbone: I beg to move manuscript amendment C, in page 4, line 12, leave out "shall" and insert "may".
After the immensely complicated debates on the previous amendments, this is a simple amendment. It merely seeks to allow the returning officers in constituencies where there is more than one district council to have the option of having two ballot boxes or one. It does not in any way interfere with the operation of the election. It does not increase the cost of the election.
It may have been brought to the notice of the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who was to move a similar amendment, which, if accepted, would have made it compulsory to use separate boxes, has withdrawn his amendment in favour of mine because of the element of unnecessary cost that his might have entailed.
The purpose of the amendment is purely to allow areas such as my constituency, where there are two districts, to split the vote in each of the polling stations so that it is easier to verify at the verification point and easier, therefore, to get the ballots for the district council elections back to the district council count with more facility than if they are combined in one ballot box.
I suggest that the present wording of the Bill stems from the legal principle


that there had to be a change in the law to allow both ballots to take place. The Bill was drawn to simplify exactly that procedure and to make it allowable within the law. The amendment suggests that local council returning officers should have the option of two boxes or one box.

Mr. John: The Association of Returning Officers apparently has represented to the Government that we should not allow the flexibility that the hon. Gentleman seeks as it would allow the wrong ballots to be put in the wrong boxes. That is the result of the consultations that we have undertaken. However, I shall reconsider the matter, although I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman anything. He will appreciate the difficulties that may arise. The possible difficulties led to the withdrawal of the mandatory amendment.
As I have said, I shall give the matter further consideration. I cannot promise that any change will be made or that I shall seek to modify the Bill, bearing in mind the firm representations that have been received, of which I have only recently been appraised. If there is a real problem and if it is possible to take action, I undertake urgently to communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rathbone: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. There is no urgency. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the job of returning officers if they feel that it would have that effect.

Mr. John: They do not think so.

Mr. Rathbone: The Minister says that that is not their view, but the returning officer in my constituency takes the contrary view. It is not merely a matter of getting one paper in the wrong box as that will turn up in any event in the centralised verification process. The purpose is to simplify that process.

Mr. John: I do not want to delay the debate. However, there is a tendency to argue from the particular to the general. I believe that we must regard the association as representative of the generality of returning officers, and it has represented a view contrary to that expressed by the returning officer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Rathbone: I shall be most grateful if the Minister rechecks with the association. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move manuscript amendment E, in page 4, line 33, leave out "then" and insert:
, after the declaration of the result of the parliamentary election,".
The object of the amendment is to secure all the votes cast until the count of the parliamentary election is complete. If the amendment is accepted, the last three lines of schedule 4 will read:
The containers shall after the declaration of the result of the parliamentary election be delivered to the returning officer for the election of district councillors, each labelled with a description of the area to which the ballot papers in it relate.
9 p.m.
The arguments for this were adequately rehearsed on Second Reading. They are, in summary, these. It would be grossly inconvenient for everybody if, when a recount were called, it was necessary to get back the district council boxes from as many as six different returning officers many miles away on the Friday, before the bank holiday weekend, when traffic was very heavy, so that boxes could be checked by the parliamentary returning officer to see whether parliamentary papers were included in boxes which should contain only district council ballot papers. That is the gravamen of the matter.
It is mandatory, as I read it, under the Bill for the containers to be delivered to the returning officer after what is set out in lines 28 to 32 has been completed. Lines 28 to 32 say:
(3) After verifying each ballot paper account, the returning officer shall separate the ballot papers relating to the election of district councillors for each area, and put them into separate containers together with a statement of the number of ballot papers in each container.
We come now to what I regard as removing the discretion which the Minister's circular claims remains in the hands of the returning officer. The Bill says:
(4) The containers shall then be delivered to the returning officer"—
"then" meaning immediately after the preceding separation. I do not see how "then" can be interpreted as meaning at


some time after the preceding process but not necessarily immediately after.
I am not a lawyer. There may be a section in one of the interpretation Acts that result in the legal meaning being different from the natural meaning. Unless that is so, I do not see how it may be read other than as a requirement that, after the process set out in lines 28 to 32 on page 4 has been completed, discretion is withdrawn from the returning officer, and he is bound at that moment in time to send the district council papers on this possibly doomed journey, from which their recall might prove such a lengthy and difficult process.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman knows that in many constituencies this potentially doomed journey is long. In my constituency the other district council centre to which ballot boxes must travel is over 30 miles from the place at which the general election count takes place.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is a source of great worry to me. The requirements of the district council elections are, elsewhere in the Bill, rightly subordinated to those of the parliamentary election. Unfortunately that process is not carried to its logical conclusion. The result is that pressure may be put upon candidates who, quite properly, want a recount to agree that it be assumed that no parliamentary ballot papers have been improperly dispatched with district council papers. The moral pressure for that, late on a Friday evening, immediately before a bank holiday, will be great if such a circumstance should arise.
The amendment is necessary to enable returning officers to take the advice which the Home Secretary responded to my original comments by offering to include in the circular. On Second Reading I said that I would accept an assurance from the Home Secretary, an honourable man, to alter the advice given by his Department in the circular. The difficulty I am left in is that if the advice given in the circular is altered to something incompatible with what the Bill says, it will be ultra vires advice. I therefore believe that the amendment is necessary to enable the good intentions expressed by the Home Secretary to be carried out.
When the Home Secretary was responding earlier to me and offering to alter the advice given in the circular, he used words

to the effect that "if it appears to the returning officer that there might need to be a recount". This presupposes that these matters are necessarily obvious to a returning officer at a stage several hours away from the completion of the count. The completion of the process mentioned in lines 28 to 32 of schedule 11 could well be several hours before the last moment at which a recount can be called for. I think it is necessary, therefore, to ask that the dispatch of these papers to district council returning officers should be delayed until the last moment was passed when a recount could be called for.
That would then avoid two evils—on the one hand, a quite improper pressure being placed on a candidate to accept a recount which is less than complete, and, on the other hand, expecting returning officers to have powers of clairvoyance which they do not possess.

Mr. John: If I do not accept the amendment, it is because I think that it replaces what the hon. Gentleman describes as a rigidity with a a further rigidity. There is, in my view, discretion at the moment to a returning officer to determine at what point he should arrange to release the ballot papers to the district council. If one were to say in all cases that one could not release any district council papers to the district councils before the parliamentary count was complete, that would be an unacceptable rigidity, taking away a great deal of discretion from the returning officer. That having been said, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point.
The circumstances will vary, of course, and that is why we have left this discretion with the returning officer. In some cases, the counts will take place in the same building as that which will have the parliamentary count. Others, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, will take place perhaps many miles distant.
I give the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) the undertaking, first, that we shall draw to the attention of the returning officer the need to take the utmost care in the separation and verification of the ballot papers. That seems to be a special need in this case if we are to avoid, as it were at birth, the sort of problem that he foresees.
Secondly, I could ask returning officers to give particular thought to the prospect of the possibility of a recount. In responding earlier to the hon. Gentleman, trying to be helpful and trying to think of an amendment which was immediately attractive, I anticipated a certainty on the part of the returning officer which might not be there at the time when the boxes were dispatched.
If the circular, instead of using the more definite words that I gave, were to emphasise the importance, before releasing the papers, of verification and the need to bear in mind in particular, at the stage at which they are released, the possibility of a recount occurring in that area, it would go some way to meet the hon. Gentleman's points without putting in the unacceptable rigidity that on no account must the ballot papers be released.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Minister of State, between now and when the Bill goes through another place, take the best legal advice in his Department as to whether my fears about the meaning of the word "then" are correct? If they are correct, could be not by amendment substitute "thereafter" for "then"?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. I gave the word "then" the meaning "thereafter" in an earlier intervention. I understand that "then" means the next step, not forthwith. If it is the next step in the chain—not the requirement to have it forthwith—that would meet the point. I undertake to reconsider this matter. If there is any doubt at all, I shall put it right, because I am mindful of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the guidance will be amended to reflect the anxiety that papers should not be released until people have made sure that the verification is as complete as possible and have borne in mind and considered the question of a recount.

Mr. David Howell: I associate myself with the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I think that the Minister has tried to meet his point in a constructive way. I have a strong preference for "thereafter" in place of "then" by way of an amendment in the other place.

My hon. Friend has raised a valid point and I am glad that the Minister has indicated that he will seek to help him.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In view of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
'(5) Any candidate in the district council elections and any candidate in the parliamentary election shall be entitled to appoint counting agents to scrutinise the opening of the ballot boxes, the separation of ballot papers and other matters relating to this stage of the count.'.
The amendment calls to mind the many stages of the counts in which we shall be engaged in these unusual combined elections and how they will occur in scattered constituencies.
In Berwick-upon-Tweed we invariably count not only on the night of the poll but on the following day. It has been known for us to declare the result at about four o'clock on Friday afternoon. In this instance we shall follow on from that to engage in district council election counts. On a bank holiday weekend it is highly likely that the staff will be unwilling to proceed with the counts on the Saturday or the following Monday, so it may be the following Tuesday before we count the district council election votes. I take it that the Minister accepts that will create problems for the security of ballot boxes and so on, but that is a consequence of the decision of the House.
We must ensure that district council candidates are not put at an improper disadvantage because of the way that these proceedings are conducted. They may have to wait four or five days before knowing whether they are elected or not. They must also be given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the counting process. The opening of ballot boxes and the verification of the ballot papers are important parts of that process. Great care is exercised.
I do not know about counts in other constituencies, but in Berwick-upon-Tweed it is the practice of the returning officer to spend a great deal of time on that process. Other hon. Members may, like me, prefer to miss the first hour or two hours of the count and have a leisurely breakfast on these occasions.
As I drive to the count, listening to other results being declared on the radio, I become increasingly worried that I may miss the vital moment to thank the returning officer, my party workers and so forth. But when I get there I usually find that they are still engaged on the important process of getting the numbers of ballot papers right and checking that they tally with the returns for each box. I am glad that they do that because, when we have recounts—we occasionally do—it means that everyone is confident that that part of the process has been successfully carried out and there is no likelihood of difficulty there. Therefore, we can start at later stages when any recounting has to be done.
9.15 p.m.
This is of concern to council candidates, because their ballot papers will be taken out of the same ballot boxes. It cannot be right that they should be denied the opportunity that they would normally have to watch that process being carried out. It is a severe restriction on their constitutional rights of scrutiny. The Minister has said a number of times that he does not want to import constitutional innovations into the conduct of these elections, other than the mere fact of having them on the same day. It is a constitutional innovation to tell one group of candidates "You can watch only the final stages of the count. You can either be present yourself or appoint someone to represent you to watch only the later stages of the count. You cannot be present when the ballot papers are taken out of the boxes and checked against the numbers in the boxes."
We must bear in mind that the numbers might be different. Let us not assume that every elector will cast his vote in both ballots. Some people may decide not to vote in both, so differences arise already. Some people have an electoral qualification for the district election and not for the parliamentary election. There are all sorts of reasons why the numbers will differ between the two.
The present procedure appears to be that council candidates will not be given the opportunity to be present when the boxes are opened. The returning officer will receive their ballot papers and they will be present when they are received, having already been opened and checked

and the risk having already arisen that some of their votes could have gone astray, or that there could have been some other invalid process.
What I have said is not quite true, because it is also the case that those council candidates who can persuade their parties to make them scrutineers for the parliamentary election might be present throughout. But here we come to the very point that the Minister used against me earlier. He said that it would be wrong to confer an advantage on one section of district council candidates because they happened to be able to align themselves with a parliamentary candidate in the same election.
I think that there was force in the Minister's argument, and I accepted it as an argument against my new clause that it would be wrong to allow them to include literature in the free post simply because their party was also putting up in the parliamentary election a candidate who was prepared to concede to them the opportunity to share in his free postal service. By the same token, it must be wrong for only those district council candidates who can gain this favour from a parliamentary candidate to be allowed to attend as scrutineers at an important stage in what is also their count.
The Minister must do something to resolve this problem, by whatever means he finds most appropriate. It cannot be right that we should import into the arrangements for this election a new constitutional principle that district council candidates, unless they can be brought in on the favour of a parliamentary candidate, are not allowed to witness, are not allowed to make representations about, vital stages in the count of their own ballot papers.
I must ask the Minister to look again at the important innovation that he is introducing here. I do not think that it is his wish to make this change. I do not think that the Committee would wish to make such an important and radical departure in the way in which we conduct elections or in the right that we give to candidates at them.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I find myself torn in two directions. I entirely agree with the principle of what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in moving the amendment. I referred


to it on Second Reading. However, I am appalled by the arithmetic of it. In the facilities available for the count, in many rural areas there will have to be far more tellers than usual anyway to do the mechanical job of verification in sorting out the papers. There will need to be closer scrutiny by the parliamentary counting agents to make sure that white ballot papers are not put where only grey papers should be.
The problem is that the two requirements can be met—and they need to be met—only by having district council elections on a different day from the parliamentary elections. The evil that the amendment seeks to remedy is not a necessary evil. It is a voluntary evil. It is the evil that arises purely and solely from the choice to have these two incompatible things on the same day. Therefore, we are left to choose between that which is mechanically imposible and that which is intolerable on principle. That is a dilemma that I think this House ought not to have been faced with. I would be interested to hear how the Minister believes that that can properly be resolved without accepting what is impossible or what is intolerable.

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Member's general observation that this is not a problem which we created but one which the Government created. Does not he also agree, however, that at least a partial solution to this problem would have arisen if separate ballot boxes had been the rule, and that the opening of those separate boxes could properly be regarded as separate counting processes, at which the parliamentary scrutineers and the local election scrutineers would be separately present, and not both together?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree almost entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but with this reservation: it would need not only separate boxes but separate rooms in the polling booth. One paper, the district council paper, having been issued, the elector to whom it was issued should not have the opportunity of putting it in the wrong box. He would then have to queue in a separate area to get a paper for the parliamentary election to put in that box without having access to the

other box. Were that not the case, the scrutineers for the parliamentary election would not see the verification of some of the papers cast in that election because they would be in the wrong box, and vice versa. Therefore, one would need not only another box but in some cases premises of double the size as well, and in some areas, again, that would not be possible. In some areas it would be possible, but it would not be in others. Mention has been made of little huts. Presumably this would require a double dose of little huts.

Mr. John: I quite acknowledge the dilemma. The hon. Member for Berwick -upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the situation quite fairly, in the sense that there is a point of principle, whereas there is a point of practice involved as well. I think that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) really tried to rehearse arguments which the Committee rejected earlier this evening, so I shall not follow him on those.
However, as to the question of practice, the EROs who have been consulted have said that this is the single most important step that we could take to make the two elections possible on the particular day. It may be that hon. Members still do not give up their argument on that, and so on. But I ask them to accept what the hon. Member for Tiverton has said on the practicalities of the matter. When the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed says "Does the Minister want the problem?", I have to say that, of course, as a matter of principle, I would not want it. But the practical steps which would follow from an acceptance of the amendment would be horrific. I have 52 councillors in one of my district councils. The idea of their all having appointed counting agents, plus their wives and friends, at the same time as the parliamentary election was taking place might well result in the number of those overseeing the elections outnumbering those who were actually conducting them—on gross figures, rather than on the sort of figures about which we are now talking.
Accepting and bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, and having taken the decision that we have fixed the date that we have, I do not think that we can accede to the amendment.

Mr. Beith: I indeed accept the extreme practical difficulties that would result from the assembly in one room of this very large number of scrutineers. However, I think that the Minister has given the game away. The fact is that in bringing together these two elections he has necessitated the removal of the constitutional rights, which we prize and regard as important in relation to all our elections, of a substantial group of people.
The Minister wrung his hands and pointed out how difficult it was to preserve their rights with this combination of the two elections. By drawing attention to the loss of these rights, we have reminded the House and the country of one of the many disadvantages and unfairnesses that will arise from this manner of proceeding.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

EXCLUSION AGREEMENTS NOT TO APPLY IN CERTAIN CASES UNLESS ENTERED INTO AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Neubert: I wish to oppose the clause.
By way of introduction to my argument, I should put it on the record that the Bill, in the circumstances of the Government's defeat last Wednesday, comes before us unexpectedly soon and comes before a Committee of the whole House rather than the more intimate and leisurely proceedings of a Standing Committee. For this reason, it has taken by surprise many of those most closely interested in its provisions. Only this morning, I received three letters of substance on the Bill all dated last Friday and all expressing concern that the Bill should not be rushed through while it remained un-amended in several important respects.
Clause 4 seeks to exclude so-called special category disputes from the opportunity which the supranational disputes have of being contracted out of judicial review. It is thought that this proposal may be unattractive to many large commercial organisations concerned in matters relating to shipping, insurance and commodities, which comprise the special category disputes.
It seems to a dispassionate onlooker that this disagreement is a blemish on a Bill which otherwise has received acclaim and is thought to have considerable merit. The overall purpose is to maintain and, if possible, to improve the reputation that London possesses as a centre of arbitration. It is with some sadness that I draw the attention of the Committee to the terms of this controversy which has arisen on this clause and with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is in


charge of the Bill for the Government will be familiar.
The argument brought forward for this exception seemed very slight. The Solicitor-General, in his speech on Second Reading, alluded to the arguments given by the Commercial Court committee whose recommendations the Government follow. The Solicitor-General said that the Commercial Court committee reported that there was no evidence of any widespread desire on the part of those engaged in special category disputes to be able to contract out of a right of judicial review.
The Solicitor-General added:
Second, the committee believed that the right of review by the courts over a wide field of arbitrations is essential if English law is to develop comprehensively and so maintain its place as first choice of law in international commerce.
9.30 p.m.
It appears to me that those two arguments largely cancel each other out. If there is no evidence that there will be a widespread taking-up of the opportunity offered, there will still be the opportunity for the law in this respect to be developed case by case.
We are requiring people engaged in these international contracts to pay for the development of law, in this respect, by long and costly litigation. Be that as it may, those two arguments do not seem very strong, taken side by side.
Thirdly, it was thought that
if contracting-out were permitted freely a contracting-out clause might become a normal term in standard form contracts, so that often the parties would not apply their minds to the question.
This anxiety exercised Lord Diplock, who is an authority on this subject as president of the Institute of Arbitrators. It seems to a layman to be lacking in substance that, because a contract is in printed form and becomes commonplace and standard, the parties to a contract cannot themselves individually negotiate different terms, in limited respects, to the contract before them.
Fourthly, it was suspected
that the present dissatisfaction with abuses of judicial review may evaporate after the commercial community has experienced the new form of procedure in the Bill.—[Official Report, 14 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 642.]

That might also stand as an argument were it not for the fact that the Government have thought it wise to introduce into the Bill a clause which would enable them to review the situation, as recommended by the committee, after two or three years. There is considerable doubt all round. No one is absolutely sure that what is proposed is right. The safety clause is left in in case it should be necessary to remove the current proposal.
That being so, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to respond now, in a way that he no doubt expected to do elsewhere and with more time in hand, to the representations by the interested parties which want an explanation with more cogency and conviction of why these contracts should not also be subject to the freedom to contract out of judicial review if that is the wish of one or other or both of the parties. The maritime arbitrators particularly feel strongly about this. They can see no great substance in the arguments against their having the right that is conferred on supranational contracts. The House will wish to have a proper case made out before agreeing to the clause as it stands.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is, of course, right to say that events have overtaken the expectations which I think we all had on Second Reading. It is true that, if the Bill had been discussed in Standing Committee, we might have been able to debate this matter at some length.
The situation has changed now for a reason that I shall try to describe in a few minutes. I begin by saying that the Bill's purpose is twofold—first, to preclude the abuse of a right of appeal to the courts by those who wish to delay the day of judgment when they have to pay their debts and, secondly, to retain the attractions of London as an international centre of arbitration.
The Bill provides that, in international arbitrations, those who so wish may stipulate when they make their contract that there shall be no appeal to the courts from a decision by the arbitrator. However, two considerations were very much in the minds of the Commercial Court committee. The first—the one to which the hon. Member has alluded—was


that where we are not dealing with international arbitrations, between what, in another place, Lord Hailsham, called "the grandees", there is a danger that one party would be in a weak bargaining position and would be bullied into accepting an exclusion clause about which, if he had had a better opportunity of entertaining the question, he might have had doubts.
Secondly, the great attraction of English commercial law as a medium for these agreements is that it is comprehensive, providing for most of the eventualities which are likely to be encountered in practice. That is, as the hon. Member himself fairly said, possibly because examples of every kind of dispute fall to be decided by the courts. It would be a serious step to encourage any development which would preclude that.
I fully take the hon. Gentleman's argument that, if there is no demand for the right to contract out, the courts might not be deprived of that opportunity, but that is a two-edged argument. If the hon. Gentleman is right and there is a real demand for the right to contract out, they would be. So, on that one, we end equal.
The real problem is that, if the Bill is to reach the statute book in this Parliament, realistically it will have to do so unamended. I say that for two reasons—first, because the agreement of the official Opposition on which the progress of the Bill depends was clearly given on the basis that it should proceed in its present form. I should regard it as a breach of faith on my part if I were now to agree to the introduction of amendments.
Secondly, in any event, if the Bill were amended, it would have to go back to another place and I doubt whether there would be time for amendments from this House to be considered there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is better to have the Bill in an unamended form than not at all.
The Bill goes some way in the direction in which he and those who have written to him clearly wish it to go. It abolishes the procedure by case stated and replaces it with a less far-reaching appeal procedure. It permits some powers of contracting out which at present do not exist. What I think the hon. Gentleman

and those who have written to him might regard as particularly important is that the Bill provides what I regard as a compromise solution, because it empowers the Secretary of State, when there has been some experience of the workings of the Bill, to add to or subtract from the categories which now fall within the special category procedure.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have also discussed with those who have written to him the problem which is in their minds. I hope that I am not misquoting them when I say that I believe even they are persuaded that the prospect of the Secretary of State being able to amend the Bill when we have seen how it works is a distinct step forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, being realistic and facing the options we are facing tonight, it is better to have an unamended Bill than no Bill at all.

Mr. Ian Percival: I should like to add to, and in many ways echo, what the Solicitor-General said.
I believe that all of us appreciate the importance of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) raised and the concern of those who wrote to him. All of us would have preferred to have discussed those concerns fully in Committee—and most interesting they would have been. I think that it is quite likely that we should have been able to persuade London Maritime that what we have is not a bad solution. On the other hand, perhaps that body would have persuaded us that at least some minor variations were necessary.
I am sure that the Solicitor-General was right to advise the Committee that it was better to have the Bill as it is than not at all. It is quite right that those were the terms of the Opposition's agreement to the Bill going through. I hope that no one will think that that was niggling. The Committee on reflection would, I am sure, feel that this is the kind of Bill with which one must not mess about in a hurry.
I have spoken to the Solicitor-General about one or two matters myself, such as the question of having a certificate of general public importance before one can have an appeal. There are one or two things that many of us would have wished to have discussed in detail and perhaps amended. However, we have all learned


that unless something is absolutely clear, to try to amend it in a hurry is a recipe for disaster. We felt that we really had to say either "Yes, let us have the whole Bill as it is" or "No, let it be considered in more detail later". To have tried, in the limited time available, to eliminate some of the warts, if that is the right description of them, some of the things about which there is concern at present, might well have landed us in the situation where we all got something we really did not want.
I hope that my hon. Friend and those on whose behalf he has spoken and whose views he has put forward will appreciate the dilemma in which we found ourselves. They will find that the whole House is very ready to look again at the Bill if it can be improved. What we all hope is that the Bill will at least provide a workable solution and a distinct improvement on what we have at present without it. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not persist in his objections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

ARBITRATION OF DIFFERENCES (CONSUMER DEALINGS)

'(1) As against a person dealing as consumer, an agreement to refer future differences to arbitration cannot be enforced except—

(a) with his written consent signified after differences have arisen; or
(b) where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance of the agreement.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect—

(a) the enforcement of arbitration agreements to which section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1975 applies (that is, arbitration agreements other than "domestic" within the meaning of that section);
(b) the resolution of differences arising under any contract so far as it is, by virtue of section 1 (2) and Schedule 1 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, excluded from the operation of sections 2, 3, 4, or 7 of that Act.

(3) A person dealing as a consumer is as defined by section 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.'—[Mr. Ward.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Ward: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that the remarks that have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and by the Government on the imperative need to pass the Bill and the difficulty of accepting amendments will be reconsidered in the light of the qualities of my clause. It has already been considered by this House and by the other place on a previous occasion. I ought perhaps to remind the House that it is broadly the same as the amendment that was moved by the Lord Chancellor to the Unfair Contract Terms Bill, a Bill that I sponsored in this House. The amendment was acceptable to me and to the Government but, owing to the tactical difficulties of sustaining a majority late on a Friday afternoon, it was found politic in order to save the Bill not to press the amendment. It became law in 1977.
The fact that the amendment was not pressed on that Bill is interesting. The report of the Law Commission on exemption clauses was the mainspring of that Bill. In that report the Commission recommended that this issue of arbitration in consumer contracts ought to be dealt with in a Bill on arbitration rather than in one dealing with exemption clauses. So it is particularly appropriate that the clause should now be moved on this Bill, although I appreciate that the main thrust of the Bill is in the direction of the recommendations of the Commercial Court committee on which there are still, according to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), some misgivings among those who have to administer the arbitration function outside.
Perhaps it would have been better if the Bill had been dropped and brought back early in the new Session, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would have been able to do. Clearly, however, he intends to press ahead with it now.
The clause relates only to contracts which concern consumers. A consumer is defined for this purpose in section 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act as someone who
neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor holds himself out as doing so


and where
the other party does make the contract in the course of a business".
So that does not touch in any way on commercial contracts as between commercial parties.
The burden of the clause is that a person dealing as a consumer cannot be bound by an arbitration clause in a contract. He cannot be forced to go to arbitration unless he has given his written consent, significed after the differences have arisen, or where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance of the agreement.
To illustrate that, I quote from the booking conditions of a company operating in the travel business. I know that the subject is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Romford. In the booking conditions in this current attractive guide to holidays worldwide in the sumber of 1979—a subject which offers great attraction to us all as we look forward to five weeks of hard work—Inghams Travel states:
In the unlikely event that you have cause for complaint and we are unable to agree on suitable settlement, the dispute will be referred"—
note the word "will"—
to an independent Arbitrator who will be appointed by the Institute of Arbitrators. The Arbitration scheme devised by the Institute of Arbitrators after consultation with the Travel Industry includes a simple and inexpensive method of arbitration. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with English Law. There is a deposit payable of £10 for the first claim and £5 for each additional claimant and your liability for costs whatever the outcome of your case will not exceed the deposit paid".
That is an interesting term because in the other brochures published by the same company the word used is not "will." The words are "may be". Many in the consumer world wish that all such contracts carried the term "may be".

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I wonder whether he has checked with the Association of British Travel Agents. My understanding is that it is not compulsory but is an option. What the hon. Gentleman referred to, in the brochure he quoted, may be a simple case of error as evidenced by other brochures which conform more nearly to what he thinks is desirable.

Mr. Ward: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct and that it is an

error. There are many other examples. I refer to a Vauxhall dealer in the Colchester area. In his terms of business he says that:
If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise…it shall be referred to a single arbitrator to be appointed by the President for the time being of the Institute of Arbitrators in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1950.
In the case of the travel company I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The company may have made an error, though am advised that similar brochures on the market are as restrictive as the one from which I have quoted appears to be. It is important to note that these clauses about arbitration give no choice to the consumer. It used to be argued that the buyer should beware—caveat emptor—but since the passage of the Unfair Contract Terms Act the question of validity of the exclusion clauses in various business documents has been resolved. The law now provides that such terms may be void, or subject to testing in the courts, under the test of reasonableness.
It is common to both the exemption clause and to arbitration, in certain business terms, that it is a question of take it or leave it for the consumer. The average man or woman going to a travel agent and studying this attractive brochure would never consider whether, in the event of a later dispute, it would be better to have access to the courts or to use the form of arbitration laid down in the booking terms. It is not reasonable to expect anybody to have to make a judgment in that context. When buying a car I am sure that the average purchaser is much more concerned with the quality of the article and with the problems of financing that purchase than he is with an obscure and rather abstruse term about a future dispute.
The difference between arbitration and the small claims procedure, which is now available to consumers in certain areas, is that it may be cheaper to go to court than to submit to arbitration. It seems unreasonable that we should permit terms which bind a person to arbitration instead of allowing him access to the cheaper procedure of the small claims court. The fee normally charged in the small claims court is about 10 per cent. of the sum claimed.
Under arbitration legal aid is not available, whereas it is for an action in the small claims court. There are also logistic difficulties involved in arbitration. Cases may have to be heard in London whereas there are 300 courts up and down the land to which a person can go for a convenient and a speedy resolution of his dispute. He also has the opportunity of appearing in person. Someone who, perhaps, was not good with pen and paper would be heard in a court. Frequently one of the conditions for arbitration is that it shall consider the written documents in the case. My proposal has already been considered by the House of Lords and by this House. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider introducing it in the last days of this Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor said that a fundamental principle is that the consumer should be free to elect whether to go to arbitration or whether to use the courts. The hon. Member for Romford said that he thought that a bargain made should be a bargain kept. The weight of the parties to the agreement or contract is important. The weight of the parties is unfairly exerted against the consumer when a form of arbitration is imposed.
The hon. Member for Romford mentioned the unsuitability of certain standard term contracts. He said it was difficult for certain people in a business relationship to agree to a suitable contract. It is more difficult for the consumer to achieve the type of contract that he needs. My proposal would enable consumers to have the genuine choice of whether to go to arbitration or to accept the process of law. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept my proposition, even at this late stage.

Mr. Percival: I hope that the Solicitor-General will forgive me for intervening now but I have to make a telephone call at 10 o'clock.
I was interested in the brochures that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) used to illustrate his case. From the attractive pictures on the front I am sure that they were advertising holidays in Southport. Of course, as holidays in

Southport always come up to expectations, the arbitration clause would be of no interest. There would be no difficulties upon which to arbitrate.
What I said on behalf of the Opposition about clause 4 also applies to this case. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Peterborough may not have a case. I do not wish to go into the merits or demerits of his argument. I know of his anxiety to see such a provision and I understand why he takes this opportunity to give his proposition another run.
We are dealing with commercial arbitration, which is a specialised subject. If we propose other provisions relating to other arbitrations, we must give them the fullest possible consideration.

Mr. John Lee: Is the hon. and learned Member really saying that the two Front Benches have come to such a meticulous agreement for the disposal of the remaining business of this Parliament that a matter as meritorious as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) cannot be considered on its merits? That does not make sense.

Mr. Percival: If it had the time, the Committee would wish to discuss whether the proposition was meritorious. The hon. Member for Peterborough thinks that it is. It is not a question of the type of agreement to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) referred rather sneeringly, as if such an agreement should not take place. It is an agreement that is intended to get through as much business as possible in the limited time available to this Parliament. Without such an agreement, several Bills would have failed.
It is an agreement between the Front Benches, but—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Percival: There is an agreement between the two Front Benches and the usual channels. There is no other way of arriving at such agreements.
In this case, the whole purpose is to facilitate progress on legislation in the remaining days of this Parliament. If the hon. Member for Handsworth thinks again he will realise that when legislation is going through in the normal way, we all have suggestions that we should like to be included in the Bill. If we are lucky enough to have an amendment or new clause called for discussion, our suggestions can be debated. However, in present circumstances, if we are to get business through in a short time, the arrangements that have been made are the only way of doing it.
It is not a one-sided affair. Many hon. Members would like to make changes and we have to give them up in exchange for having a Bill for which there would otherwise not be time. The Opposition cannot accept the new clause because what I have said applies across the board. Every hon. Member who has a particular interest would like to be an exception, but, having said that we would forgo the changes that we should like to make in exchange for others doing the same, we must stick to it. The House and the country get a good bargain from the arrangement by receiving a Bill which will be useful.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot echo the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about the brochure shown to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), since I do not believe that it is likely to be inviting anyone to take his holidays in Warley, West. As I said in my maiden speech, the beauties of that area lie less in its landscape than in the hearts of its people.
I am aware of the chain of events that transpired during the course of our debates on the Unfair Contract Terms Bill. An amendment in identical terms to my hon. Friend's new clause was moved in another place by the Lord Chancellor.

That should suffice to make clear the Government's attitude. Despite reservations expressed by some noble Lords, particularly Lord Hailsham, the amendment was approved in another place, but the motion "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment" was defeated in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend alluded.
I understand that, in essence, the argument on the merits of the proposal related to the question whether a party to a consumer contract who agrees at the time of the contract that disputes should be referred to arbitration should be held to that agreement. The Government took the view that since those who sign contracts of the sort which my hon. Friend has in mind do not always read them, and in any event, as he indicated, I doubt whether they spend all their waking hours reflecting on the implications of an arbitration clause, they should not be excluded from access to the courts by such a clause.
I am not sure that the amendment had general support in each House. The answer is that we do not know. It was not fully debated in either House. The reservations expressed in another place by Lords Hailsham and Denning were based largely on the thesis that at a time when, in most countries, an increasing use was being made of arbitration it would be a retrograde step if Britain were to discourage it.
The reservations in this place expressed by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) were on a rather different ground. He said—I hope that I am paraphrasing the hon. Gentleman accurately—that those who sign contracts should in general be held to the terms of the contract.
I am bound to say that on the merits I prefer the argument of my hon. Friend. I am not sure that there is any agreement between the Front Benches. I have not put that to the test. My present inclination is to say that if and when the merits fall to be discussed I shall endeavour to support my hon. Friend. Whatever may be the view of other hon. Members, I do not think that there is anything between us on the merits.
But I echo what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Southport on the reasons why I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his clause. There


has not, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) suggested, been some discreditable deal between the Front Benches to exclude the possibility of amendment. We are merely recognising the realities. The choice that confronts the Committee is the Bill in its unamended form or no Bill.

Mr. Lee: I was not accusing anybody of anything discreditable. I was merely saying that the new clause is so meritorious and uncontroversial that I could not imagine that in the aftermath of last Wednesday something in a sense so mundane and non-political could have been in contemplation when the Front Benches evolved their pact.

The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a meritorious new clause. I am not sure that I can agree that it is uncontroversial. It appears from what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Southport that it is controversial in the present context. It appears that it would not get through the House without much greater discussion than will be possible this evening.

Mr. Ward: Where is the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)?

The Solicitor-General: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had reasons for leaving the Chamber. I gather that he is returning.
There is a second reason, which I hope my hon. Friend will accept. It is a reason which is less immediately pragmatic but one to which I attach some importance. Many of us have directed our minds for some time to the problem of how we can make our legislation more intelligible to those who have to apply it. One guideline that seems to me important is that we should deal with one subject in one Bill and not insert provisions on a different subject merely because the opportunity presents itself in the House. Those who need to consult the statute book should find the appropriate provision in the Act where it naturally belongs.
My hon. Friend said that the Law Commission had recommended that provisions of the effect to be found in the new clause should be inserted in an arbitration Bill. I am bound to say that he has

defeated me. It may be that I am being more than usually thick this evening. I looked for that recommendation in the second report on exemption clauses and I could not find it. I found the paragraph in which the Law Commission dealt with the proposal, but it did not appear to me that it was saying that it should be inserted in an arbitration Bill.
I do not know which of us read the paragraph more accurately—I know that my hon. Friend is probably more familiar with the report than I am—but I do not think that the Law Commission had in mind an arbitration Bill of the sort that is now before us. The Bill deals with the subject matter of what is coming to be called the Donaldson report, the report of the Commercial Court committee about rights of appeal from arbitrators in commercial cases. I do not think that it is a natural Bill for a provision relating to consumer protection, however meritorious it may be.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I approve of his intention. I am sure that he will accept that I cannot bind any future Government. Speaking purely for myself, if and when I have any influence in the matter I hope that he will find me sympathetic. But I hope that his attachment to one worthy cause will not lead him to destroy another. I hope that he will accept that this Bill is worthy to get on to the statute book at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Ward: In view of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend on the position of himself as a legal officer, and the support which the policy on this clause has already received from the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, we have sufficient agreement to expect that something of this kind will pass into law in the next Parliament.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

CROWN AGENTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WOR KERS' COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is designed to deal with a long-standing problem. Pneumoconiosis is a disease that occurs as a result of inhaling certain types of dust. It develops very gradually and continues to do so after contact with the dust has ceased.
Most hon. Members will probably be familiar with the symptoms of the advanced stage of this distressing disease. Essentially they are extreme breathlessness caused by loss of elasticity in the lungs, making the slightest exertion, even gentle walking, a painful effort. In the worst cases sufferers are confined to bed and are kept alive only by drugs, oxygen and, frequently, devoted nursing by wives or other relatives.
The majority of sufferers in this country are former coal miners. In 1974 the National Coal Board, which as the responsible employer was then faced with a large number of court cases, set up a compensation scheme in co-operation with the mine workers' unions to compensate those for whom it was responsible, without incurring the costs and delays of litigation.
There are other industries which give rise to the dust which can cause the disease. While slate quarrying is perhaps the best known, iron ore mining, foundries, potteries and others are involved. I am especially glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has just taken his seat.

He has long pressurised my Department and me to introduce a scheme similar to that embodied in the Bill to help many of his constituents who work in the pottery industry.
Work with asbestos may also form a cause of pneumoconiosis. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is present. The House will recognise the long and sustained campaign that he fought on behalf of sufferers from asbestosis.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And miners.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me that miners are also affected.
Some textile workers, as a result of their employment, suffer from the very similar disease of byssinosis, and hon. Members representing textile constituencies have likewise pressed successive Governments to bring in provisions similar to those contained in the Bill.
In law, the remedy for people suffering from these diseases is to sue the employer concerned for damages, if they can show that he has been negligent. But, because of the time it takes for the disease to develop, it can often be the case, particularly in declining industries, that by the time the disease has been diagnosed the employer responsible no longer exists.
We have for a long time been mindful that consideration should be given to the problems of these sufferers. However, the Pearson Commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury, which was set up in 1973, was known to be looking at the question of compensation for pneumoconiosis, and we thought it right to defer any consideration while the Commission was carrying out its task. When the Commission reported early last year, it felt
unable to recommend that a special compensation scheme should be set up
for such people.
However, strong representations were immediately made to me from a number of sources. I mention in particular a former distinguished Member of this House, Sir Elwyn Jones, a solicitor who in the course of his practice had dealt with very many such cases as are covered by the Bill. He and other people persuaded and


convinced me that we should look further into the matter.
The slow onset of pneumoconiosis and associated diseases, resulting in a higher possibility than in most other cases that there would be no surviving employers, gave ground for separate consideration of their problems. I therefore persuaded my colleagues in the Government that it was right to set up an interdepartmental working group to review all the available evidence on the question, to obtain such further information and evidence as was necessary and to report hack. That was done on 2 May 1978.
In the Queen's Speech last November, it was made clear that we intended to press on with that re-examination. The first results of the working group's consideration became available to me in late January of this year. In the light of these, the Government concluded that it would be right to introduce a Bill at the earliest possible moment to provide State compensation specifically for sufferers from pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and the closely associated but more acute disease of diffuse mesothelioma, or to the dependants of deceased sufferers, provided that there was no employer for whom the sufferer worked in work where he could have developed the disease who was still in business and therefore capable of being sued for damages, and that no claim for damages had been brought in the past against any such employer.
The effect of these restrictions is to limit compensation to those who have no employer to sue and to avoid a situation in which the State would, in effect, be shouldering the responsibilities of existing employers as an alternative to their facing action in the courts.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the Minister clarify exactly how that compares with the position under the National Coal Board scheme? The NCB, of course, continues in existence. Is the scheme different, or is it the same?

Mr. Walker: There are close similarities between the two schemes. The difference with the National Coal Board scheme is that there is an employer to sue, except that, in order to avoid the litigation which might have ensued from the Pickles case—the House will not expect me to go into detail now—there

was a voluntary scheme set up within the industry. The NCB scheme is a voluntary scheme within the industry and not one that is administered by a Government Department for which a Minister has direct responsibility.

Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend will accept that one of the objections often posed to automatic compensation schemes of this sort is that claimants receive less in financial terms than they would otherwise get by seeking damages in the usual way. Will he give the House an assurance that the compensation rates which will be payable under this scheme will be related to the scales of compensation which, I am advised, are followed by judges in awarding compensation for cases which are brought through the usual legal procedures?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure that it would be possible to relate the scheme to hypothetical court judgments, because we should need to have regard to what are often inconsistent compensation amounts. We thought it right and perhaps more equitable to provide compensation roughly comparable with that provided under the National Coal Board's compensation scheme. The regulations which will eventually be produced will be related to that scheme.
The Bill does not specifically apply to Northern Ireland. However, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that urgent consideration is to be given to enacting corresponding legislation for Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council subject to affirmative resolution, made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I wonder whether I may refer the Minister to what he said about clause 1(3) on the definition of the diseases to which the Bill applies. He may recall that in the past I have written to him about gypsum workers in my constituency—gypsum is used in making plaster of Paris—who have had great trouble from respiratory diseases. Will he confirm that the respiratory diseases caused to gypsum workers will be covered by the definition in clause 1(3) of this welcome Bill?

Mr. Walker: Clause 2 sets out the conditions of entitlement. They include the requirement that the disablement benefit


must be received by the person making the claim under the Department of Health and Social Security's existing schemes. If the workers that the hon. Gentleman has in mind are eligible for benefits because they are employed in one of the industries covered by the DHSS range of prescribed diseases in occupations, they will probably be within the scope of the scheme. I should not like to mislead the hon. Gentleman. It may be more sensible for me to return to that point when we reach clause 2 in later proceedings. It may be that I can then put the matter beyond any further doubt. If the hon. Gentleman will remind me of that matter in our later proceedings, I may be able to clarify it further for him.
In the circumstances in which the House is meeting and the widespread publicity that the scheme has attracted, it may be that I should bring my introductory remarks to a conclusion, although, with the permission of the House, I shall be happy to respond if hon. Members seek further information.
I hope it is clear from what I have said that some of the suggestions and comments which have been made outside the House about the introduction of the scheme are wholly unjustified. We have been anxious to help these sufferers for a long time. For some considerable time we were inhibited by the Pearson Commission's inquiry. When the Commission's report was available, we quickly set up the working group which I have described. Since the group reported two months ago, we have moved with all possible speed to publish the Bill. To suggest otherwise is an affront to all in different parts of the House, in different political parties and in different trade unions within different industries who have conducted a long and honourable campaign.
I have already mentioned my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Sowerby. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) had an Adjournment debate about two years ago drawing attention to the problems of iron ore miners. I understand that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), as long ago as 1972 met representatives on behalf of these groups. It is regrettable that some people have sought to make the suffering of these

groups a pawn in a party political game when others have been conducting a long and honourable campaign on behalf of these people who at last see their reasonable claims in sight of fulfilment.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: We are very glad to see the Bill before the House, even at this late hour. The Government promised in the Queen's Speech on 1 November last year that they were
examining schemes to provide compensation for those such as slate quarrymen who have suffered respiratory diseases from dust in their employment, but who are unable to obtain such compensation through the courts because their employers have gone out of business.
We welcome the fact that the Bill covers not only slate workers but workers in the textile and asbestos industries. Anyone who has seen people suffer from industrial respiratory diseases or injury will welcome any measure that provides relief and help for the sufferers.
Although my first personal experience of industrial disease of this kind was of pneumoconiosis in the Swansea valley, I have since met silicosis among the quarrymen of Bethesda in my constituency. As the Minister reminded me, one of my clearest recollections of the early days of the 1970–74 Parliament, when I came in as a new Member, was of accompanying the then hon. Member for Caernarvon, now Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to the Department of Health and Social Security to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), then a Minister in that Department, what could be done to help slate quarrymen suffering from dust disease. Many of them left the quarry with bronchitis and emphysema, only to develop silicosis at a later stage. My hon. Friend was very sympathetic, as I am sure the whole House will be sympathetic to him now in his recent bereavement. Since then, many questions have been asked in the House about silicosis and the other respiratory diseases.
As regards silicosis, a fillip to progress was provided by the Government-NCB scheme to assist the miners. It helped to isolate the problem of those workers whose employers had gone out of business. Those employers who were still in business could be claimed against in the courts, and many have made provision against just such an eventuality through insurance schemes of various


kinds. I am glad to say that at least one firm in my constituency which employs quarrymen has made such provision. It is to be commended for doing so.
Another significant step was the Government's commissioning of a survey carried out by the Welsh National School of Medicine and associated bodies on the respiratory health of the adult male population of some Gwynedd quarrying areas. A preliminary report of the survey was made available in November 1977. Since then we have had the Pearson Commission report on civil liability and compensation for personal injury. The Commission was set up by us in 1973. The report was disappointing at first sight, but it resulted in the Government's instituting further inquiry, as the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday.
When the Commission's report was published, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House, and in reply to a supplementary question of mine he had no hesitation in saying:
I am well aware that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have followed the health problems of slate quarrymen very carefully, as I have myself ".
I had put it to him then that
a special scheme for slate quarrymen will have to be devised, just as there is one for sufferers from pneumoconiosis in the coal pits".—[Official Report, 16 March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 644.]
Members of all parties have worked for the Bill, which has had a lengthy period of gestation because of the difficulties involved. We recognise those difficulties.
It is not only politicians, including the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who have worked for the Bill, but trade unionists, local government officials and medical personnel. A former Labour Member for my constituency has already been mentioned by the Minister—Sir Elwyn Jones. He has contributed a great deal, as the Minister readily admitted. The Minister himself has visited the quarrying town of Blaenau Ffestiniog, where he undoubtedly received inspiration to carry on with the work of preparing the Bill.
It was unfortunate that the appearance of the Bill was delayed until the tail end of this Parliament. But to those who

try to make political capital out of the Bill I would say
other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.
Quarrymen are proud people, and I do not think that any political party will gain an ounce of credibility or an iota of allegiance and affection from them if that party seeks to make political capital out of a Bill that has been blessed in advance by both sides of the House.
I have one or two queries which arise from the fact that, because the Bill was rushed into print at a late stage, we have not had as much time as we would wish to consult representatives of the sufferers from the various forms of pneumoconiosis covered by the Bill. That point was accepted by the Lord President last Thursday.
First, with regard to those covered by the Bill, could we have some idea of how payments to them will compare with payments under the miners' pneumoconiosis scheme? My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) had a fair point in his intervention when he was seeking to point out that the pneumoconiosis scheme as applied to the miners covers the situation where there is an employer—namely, the NCB. It is quite clear that this scheme does not cover the situation where there is an employer. The implication, therefore, is that there is special treatment for the miners. The miner does not have to sue. He does not have to seek tort compensation. Therefore, some comments on that point from the Minister would be useful.
We would also like to know how payments under the Bill will compare with payments obtained through the courts from employers still in business in the slate, textile and asbestos industries. I hope that in giving an easy passage to the Bill we shall not be depriving the sufferers of anything that they might have obtained if we had time for a more detailed discussion of the measure.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that all the different groups of workers that should be covered are, in fact, covered by the Bill. He will recall that the Pearson Commission's report made a significant point of this when it said:
Any State scheme would in our view have to compensate all employees who had failed,


through no fault of their own, to obtain tort compensation.
Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister mentioned workers in the
pottery industries as well as in the iron ore industries."—[Official Report, 27 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 256.]
Are those workers fully covered by this scheme?
There are farmworkers who suffer from the respiratory disease of farmer's lung, which is a prescribed disease qualifying the sufferer for special benefits. In Wales, as well as farmworkers we have crofters—tyddynwyr—self-employed farmers on a small scale, who occasionally fall victim to the disease. I should be glad of the Minister's observations on their position in relation to the Bill.
As I said at the beginning, we welcome the Bill. We trust that it will provide some consolation to those who suffer from these heartbreaking diseases. Money in itself is little consolation, but it can provide a modicum of security and comfort and ease life for those disadvantaged by disease and injury.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am very glad to have this opportunity to express my warm appreciation to the Government for introducing the Bill.
I have a special interest in the measure because, although by today only a few of my constituents are affected, some men from Anglesey traditionally over the years have gone over the Menai Straits to work in the slate quarries of Dinorwic, and some of them are affected by this dreadful disease. But it is also probable that no hon. Member has a closer interest in the slate quarrying industry of North Wales than I have. I am the first member of my family for about 300 years not to be associated with the industry. From my birth I have had a close interest in all its workings.
The problem of the slate quarrymen—and the other categories as well; they are all of great importance—has presented complex legal difficulties for the Government. This is one of the reasons for the unfairly criticised delay in the production of the Bill.
The position of the coal miners was always different. The National Coal Board had absorbed the private com-

panies and their liabilities. It was possible to achieve a scheme between the Government and the National Coal Board with the agreement of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1974 which brought equity and justice to the coal miners who suffered from pneumoconiosis.
Quite properly, the Government awaited the result of the Pearson Commission on civil liabilities. I hoped, with others, that the Commission would have reported favourably on the position of the slate quarrymen. Unhappily, when the report was published last summer, the result was unfavourable. In fairness to the Government, it should be said that following representations made by the Labour Party—the Minister of State will recall that I personally led two deputations to him—with other political parties co-operating, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment set up an interdepartmental committee immediately to examine the implications and to look into what might be done.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who has taken a great interest in this matter throughout, was perhaps slightly unfair when he accused the Government of dealing with this at"the tail end"of a Parliament. If this is the tail end of this Parliament, that is the responsiblity not of Government supporters but of the Opposition, who moved the motion of censure last week. If matters had taken their normal course and the Government had proceeded effectively, as they were doing, until the late summer or even until the autumn, the Bill would have run its normal course and become law in the usual way.
Nevertheless, we must be grateful for the Bill, and I support what the Minister said when he congratulated my old friend the former Sir Elwyn Jones, who was at one time a Member of this House and who is probably the greatest expert on this subject. He has been the solicitor to the old North Wales Quarrymen's Union since about 1929, and his service is notable. I associate with him Mr. Idwal Edwards, lately of the Transport and General Workers Union in Gwynedd, who also put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that the Bill came into existence.
The Bill will help those former slate quarrymen who are suffering from this grim respiratory disease and who have no


recourse to litigation. Those men and their widows will be helped. It is high time that this was done. I congratulate the Government on introducing this necessary measure and wish it a speedy passage through all its remaining stages.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I know that it is in order to congratulate a new hon. Member on his maiden speech. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to congratulate the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) on what may be his swan song. If it is his swan song, I imagine he would choose this subject as particularly appropriate in view of his family links with the industry which extend to my constituency. He has been interested in this subject over many years. I recognise the work of the right hon. Member and others in seeing fair play for the quarrymen.
I associate my colleagues and myself in the general welcome given to the Bill. The fact that it has come at a difficult time in the life of this Parliament makes it none the less welcome. Many people feel that the Bill is overdue, in the context not only of slate quarrymen but of many other employees who have suffered so much over the years. Many people in the coal mining industry felt that an agreement—possibly a better agreement—should have been reached earlier than in 1974–75 for miners in that industry. However, now that the Bill has arrived, it is to be welcomed.
I also associate myself with the tributes that have been paid from both sides of the House to those who have worked to secure fair play for the slate quarrymen over the years. The name of Sir Elwyn Jones, an eminent solicitor involved in this work, has been mentioned. I would also refer to the work of Mr. Idwal Edwards, one of my constituents, albeit the agent for my Labour Party opponent in the coming election, who took an active interest in the matter until his retirement two years ago. There are many others, including the medical officer of health for the area.
In the post-war years, it became apparent that men in the slate quarrying areas were not dying a slow death from tuberculosis but that, contrary to opinion two, three or four decades before that dust

from the slate was good for one's health—incredible though that may now seem—the dust was causing people to die prematurely.
For hon. Members not conversant with the slate quarrying industry. I should like to underline how pernicious is this disease. It is progressive in nature. A man who may have left the slate quarries 10 years previously can for the first time show symptoms of silicosis. That makes the situation different from the coal mining industry. There is also greater difficulty in identifying the silicosis of slate quarrymen. Often an X-ray shows only a small proportion, perhaps 1 per cent., of dust, yet when a quarryman dies a post mortem can show his lungs caked with dust.
There may be another problem in terms of identification in the application of the Bill. That is no doubt a matter which future Governments will have to face when the Bill is in operation. The measure is particularly important to those living in Gwynedd, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) know. At the turn of the century slate quarrying was a major industry, employing 20,000 people in Gwynedd. That is an amazing number. It now employs about 300 people, which shows the decline of an industry within the lifetime of people alive today.
The fact that the industry has declined in the post-war years, particularly the 1950s and the 1960s, is significant. Over this period companies became bankrupt and defunct, landing the quarrymen and ex-quarrymen in a situation in which they could not get redress through the courts. This problem has been particularly difficult in recent years.
When the present Government came to office in 1974, the Pearson Commission was considering this problem. It was deemed appropriate, rightly, to carry on the compensation scheme for the coal miners irrespective of any consideration that Pearson may have been able to give to that question. It was also possible in the intervening years to give attention to certain aspects of other problems covered by Pearson, such as the thalidomide cases. I and my colleagues—and, I think, hon. Members on both sides—would have liked to see faster progress with the slate quarrymen's case.


Possibly the Government themselves, had they realised that Pearson would take so long, would have moved more quickly. Indeed, in 1975, when the Government said that they were awaiting Pearson, I am sure that they did not expect to have to wait until March 1978 for the report—or that they would get such a flimsy report on this aspect. Pearson was very disappointing.
We were pleased in my constituency last summer to welcome the Minister of State, who attended a meeting organised by the Wales TUC, which has also played an active part in this battle, at Llanberis—a meeting which neither he nor the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who was there with him, will easily forget. There had been a march through the village to that meeting, a march which did not go for miles, or even for half-miles. It could go only two or three hundred yards, because the quarrymen and the former quarrymen who took part in it could not walk any further. There was a slight gradient, and it was all they could do to walk up the gradient to the hotel where the meeting was held. I think that the case of these men impressed itself forcibly on the two Ministers at that meeting, had they not been aware of it before—and I know from their personal experience in other industries that they were aware of it.
What is at stake is not just compensation for the quarrymen themselves; there is a fundamental question of compensation for the widows. These ladies have often given the best part of their lives to nursing dying husbands. They have seen their husbands die from day to day. Sometimes it has been a slow and prolonged death, sometimes it has been relatively quick; but death has been equally inevitable. At the end, after the indignity of a post mortem, when everyone knew the reason why these men were dying, they have been given the pittance of 55p a week on top of their pension. This has been a disgrace, whether in slate quarrying or in any other industry. It is high time that this redress came.
I join other hon. Members in asking about the comparability between the compensation possible under this scheme and that which may be forthcoming under settlements out of court for similar suffering in the industry. In my area there

will be an interesting comparison. In the Ogwen valley, represented by the hon. Member for Conway, there are settlements out of court. There will be people—perhaps cousins, perhaps brothers, of those involved—who have worked in respective quarries and who may be subject to different compensation schemes. I hope that there will be a broad similarity in the compensation available so that there is no feeling that one side or the other is missing out as a result.
There is a possibility, if the scheme is based on the NCB-NUM formula, that those whose identification of silicosis has been made only late in life but who have suffered over a number of years before that identification was made will receive a smaller sum than they might have had under the settlements which are being made in the Ogwen valley at the moment.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the reason why settlements out of court are possible in this case is that the Penrhyn Quarry Company is the only major company left in business?

Mr. Wigley: That is certainly the case. That is obviously the reason why settlements are taking place between the solicitors for the trade union involved—the Transport and General Workers Union, as it now is—and the insurance company on behalf of the employers. None the less, the comparison will still be made. I am sure that no hon. Member would be in favour of people feeling that the scheme rightly brought forward by the Government could in any way be a poor relation to the settlement which is currently going on. I put that forward because the question will be raised.
There is also the question of how far back settlements can go for widows and dependants. We know that there have been certain difficulties in the coal mining industry about cut-off dates. I think that January 1970 is the cut-off date for certain categorisations. We hope that there will not be such cut-off dates in relation to this category, particularly in view of the fact that some of the major slate quarries closed in the early and middle 'sixties. I think it was the Dinorwic quarry that closed in 1967–68. If there was a cutoff date such as 1970, it could cause


problems for those hoping to get compensation from this scheme.
I also hope that the figures described in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, which show that there will be a substantial sum in the first year but relatively small sums in subsequent years, are only an annotation to say that there will be money available, and that if it is necessary to have larger sums in subsequent years those sums will be forthcoming. I presume this to be so, but I shall be glad if the Minister can confirm it.
We welcome the fact that the Bill is applicable to other industries. It is not only slate quarrymen who have suffered. We know that those working in brickworks—my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has many examples of this—and other industries, such as textiles, have suffered equally, and some may have suffered more. What is right is that if a man is suffering, he has compensation. Alhough that compensation will never bring back his health, at least it will give him something for the years of misery that he and his family have endured.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that even at this late hour it will have a smooth passage. I thank the Minister for the work he has put into the Bill and the Lord President for facilitating its passage.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: That was a generous and well-informed speech by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who attempted to make no party point. This is a matter which deals with suffering of individuals essentially in North Wales which I think everyone in the House will accept is something which has been pressed and worked for by the Government on an all-party basis.
All Wales will rejoice at the Bill. We think of this problem as essentially applicable to North Wales in relation to the quarrymen, although there are other categories outside North Wales. There is a considerable fellow-feeling in South Wales because of our experience with pneumoconiosis. There must be few individuals in South Wales who do not have within their own family or that of a close acquaintance someone whose life

has been ruined as a result of dust disease. Therefore, there must be that sympathy, that fellow-feeling, for those in the South.
Sadly, because of the way this matter has been treated by the media over the past weeks, this most tragically human of problems has become entangled with an apparent dutch auction between the parties. However, we all know that enormous credit is due to the Minister and to members of all parties who have worked for the Bill. The former Sir Elwyn Jones is, of course, the local expert on the matter. We were promised this Bill in the Queen's Speech. It is long awaited but most welcome and crowns the achievement of this Parliament in helping the disabled.
Finally, I should like to follow the hon. Member for Caernarvon in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) on what is perhaps his valedictory speech. I am sure that had he had the choice, over the many years of public service he has given, of speaking on any subject, it probably would have been his choice to stand here and give his blessing to this most welcome of Bills.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I shall take very little time of the House to give a general welcome to the Bill, which is long overdue.
It happens that I had contact with the area of the quarries in my young days, particularly when I was at the Bar. I was the candidate in the Conway division in 1950–51 when my Labour adversary was none other than the former Sir Elwyn Jones. We became very firm friends and he instructed me many times at the Bar thereafter. I remember the great interest he took in the conditions of the quarrymen. For whatever reason the Bill is passed, I think that the whole House should welcome it as a necessary and long overdue measure.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), in about the third swan song I have heard him make, was as effective and generous as he always is. I am glad that he referred to the work of Sir Elwyn Jones in this matter. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree from his legal experience that there are many gaps left in our society of people


who cannot recover damages. They cannot find the right defendant, or it is difficult to prove how they sustained, for example, a respiratory disease. I recall a case on which I had to advise not so long ago when someone had, as a result of chemical fumes over many years, sustained respiratory disease. In that case it was impossible to find a defendant. Even if he had found one, it would have proved difficult to prove the causation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that many tribunals are still far too tardy in their recognition of the existence of industrial diseases?

Mr. Hooson: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I am very much in favour of a movement away from compensation that is allowed only on proof of fault or blame. In the next few generations, and the sooner the better, we should move away, much as I enjoy the gladiatorial life of the Bar, from the system of proving fault. We should move in the direction, as the Bill does, of total insurance for health and away from the concept of lump sums. We should come down to what is a good living for a man thoughout his life if he has sustained disease because of his employment. On that and other grounds, I very much welcome the Bill.

Mr. Max Madden: I think that the speeches and the attendance tonight illustrate the general welcome and importance which the House attaches to the scheme. That was underlined by the widespread support that has been given to the early-day motion which I and a number of my hon. Friends tabled. They included my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). That motion welcomed the scheme and noted that it would help a large number of workers who were
exposed to dust hazards, including workers in textiles, quarrying, brickmaking, potteries, thermal insulation, foundries and demolition throughout the United Kingdom; and further recognises that this important advance in health and safety legislation honours the promise contained in the Queen's Speech delivered on 1 November 1978".

The journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published last December contained an interesting article which drew attention to the difficulties which many people suffering from dust diseases experienced in securing compensation. It said that
In any compensation case before British Courts, the three issues to be settled are liability, disability, and quantum".
The article referred to a number of individual cases and added:
Doctors may play a large part in presenting their legal colleagues with adequate histories".
As an example, the article refers to the elderly lady with a mesothelioma who might not have mentioned that her work as a sack repairer as a teenager had resulted in her contracting the dust disease. It mentions the housewife with a mesothelioma who should have been questioned about her husband's occupation as a shipyard plumber. As such he had brought home clothes to be washed and had covered her with asbestos dust while she was cleaning them.
The article refers to difficulties which arose for the casual worker on lagging who may have had 20 employers, many long out of business, in the 1930s or even earlier. It said:
Since it is unlikely that exposure within the last ten years will give clinically recognisable asbestosis, it is convenient to apportion the responsibility for injury according to the number of years' employment with each firm excluding the last ten years to date. Similarly exposure within the last twenty years could be excluded in apportioning for mesotheliomas".
It goes on to say that
The family of a worker dying with a mesothelioma is in need of help".
It refers to a particular court case where it was found that
although a positive diagnosis was achieved in 39 subjects during life, in the expectation of securing industrial compensation, less than half of the dependants were currently receiving benefit.
The article concluded:
Improvement in diagnosis has not been matched by improved facilities for obtaining compensation and much could be done to help this.
I think that this scheme will help a little, but we must remember that the core of the scheme,—its success depends upon it—is, in my view, the improved performance of the pneumoconiosis medical


panels. The responsibility for deciding whether a person is suffering from asbestosis or, indeed, any other of the pneumoconiotic diseases, for the purposes of a claim for disablement benefit, is a matter for the doctors of the pneumoconiosis medical board in the first instance and then, on appeal or on a reference by the Secretary of State, for a medical arbitration tribunal.
On this latter point, I was pleased last year that the Secretary of State for Social Services was able to introduce, for the first time, a right of appeal. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State is in his place on the Front Bench tonight. That scheme allowed for claimants who had been rejected four times in any two-year period the right of appeal to an independent medical arbitration tribunal. I am even more pleased to say that after representations from myself and others the Secretary of State has introduced a new system which allows claimants who have been rejected twice in one year to have a right of appeal. That provision comes into force on Friday.
On the very stringent grounds of appeal that now operate, more than half of the appeals have been upheld. That clearly indicates a level of concern about the diagnosis of disablement which the medical panels in some parts of the country have been making. None of us can afford to be complacent about this matter. I register my credentials in this affair by saying that nearly 100 of my constituents have died from asbestosis and another 300 are suffering from this disease.
I have heard alarming stories tonight about the medical condition of constituents of other hon. Members. I meet many of these people at my advice centres, which are sometimes on the second floor of buildings, and it is often 20 minutes before the people suffering from the disease have sufficient breath to hold a normal conversation after climbing stairs. That is the degree of disability created by these diseases. Therefore, I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister that while I do not expect answers tonight to all my questions, I should appreciate a letter from him giving me some additional information. Though none of them is new, I press these points.
First, to dispel some of the suspicions about the performance of medical panels, can we have a clear assurance from the Minister that efforts will be made to rotate the doctors who serve on medical panels? That will avoid an established view of their work gaining ground and giving rise to suspicion in the minds of claimants who are rejected time and time again by panels that they are meeting on each occasion the same doctors who have rejected their claims in the past.
A constituent of mine, now dead, received over £20,000 compensation from the courts but was turned down on seven occasions by medical panels. The panels said that, in their view, he was not suffering from any disability. That is not a lone case. There are countless constituents of mine who have received compensation from the company for which they used to work but who have been turned down time and time again by medical panels when they have tried to claim disablement benefit.
I draw the attention of the House to another case which is not unique but which illustrates my concern and that of others. A gentleman who lives in the East End of London was referred to a medical arbitration tribunal by the Secretary of State. It was said that he had not suffered from pneumoconiosis at any time since 1974. That gentleman has received invalidity benefit and attendance allowance for nearly two years. I and others assume that because he is in receipt of those benefits he is disabled. We cannot understand why medical panels in this and other cases take the view that the claimant is not disabled.
Clause 2 of the Bill refers to providing for those disabled by such a disease who are entitled to the appropriate social security benefit. It is important for the Minister to spell out to which social security benefits that refers. It appears that a person cannot qualify on the ground of receiving benefits whether or not he qualifies because his employer is no longer in business.
Asbestosis sufferers and others who suffer from pneumoconiotic diseases have particular needs for which they do not qualify if they are not in receipt of social security benefits. Heating allowances are an example. These people feel cold all the time. They need high levels of heating, but they can obtain no assistance


from the DHSS if they do not receive benefits to cover heating. Such people also often need bed linen which must be laundered daily. It is difficult for them to be assisted if they do not receive social security payments.
I understand that in Scotland post mortems have not been conducted even when pneumoconiosis boards have accepted a diagnosis of fibrosis of the pleura and exposure to asbestos but have refused disability benefit for asbestosis or for asbestosis and lung cancer both during life and after death. Efforts should be made to ensure that post mortems take place in such cases. Post mortems are important to dependants who wish to make a claim under the scheme.
The Minister has been asked whether all dust diseases are included in the scheme. Mention has been made of several. Are farmer's lung, beryllium poisoning, cadmium poisoning, nitrous fumes poisoning and nickel cancer covered by the scheme?
Who will administer the scheme? I assume that it will be administered by Department of Employment officials. Medical panels are responsible to the DHSS, and the Secretary of State for Social Services has a right to refer claims for independent appeal to the medical arbitration tribunal. Will the Secretary of State for Employment have a similar power under the Bill?
What efforts are to be made to publicise the scheme? If it is to be of use, extensive publicity must be given. Many sufferers live in geographically isolated areas and have little contact with people. Special efforts must be made to assist them and to bring the scheme to their attention.
As medical panels will be important in determining disability, can consideration be given to paying for medical and legal representation before the panels? Claimants have a right to be represented, but no financial assistance is available to them. Many of my constituents have been faced with paying at least £50 for an examination by a consultant, and I see no reason why examinations should not be freely available under the National Health Service.
Many companies that resist claims for compensation insist on two, and sometimes three, examinations by consultants

—at £50 a time. Many poor people are deterred from pursuing claims for compensation because they cannot afford the costs. If they have no guarantee of success, they can be faced with substantial costs, particularly as the qualifying limit for legal aid is wholly unrealistic and takes no account of the inflation of recent years.
I receive numerous complaints about the way in which examinations are conducted by medical panels. Is guidance issued to panels about how examinations should be carried out? If so, will the Government publish that guidance, since I have heard extraordinary stories about the examinations that some of my constituents have been given?
Has the proposed scheme been considered by the asbestos advisory committee? Reference has been made to the Pearson committee taking a long time, but the Simpson committee on asbestos was established in 1975 and has still not reported. I was promised that it would report last autumn. Then I was told that the report would be published early this year. Then it was to be the end of this month. I now gather that the report is still some months away. When can we expect it? Has the committee considered the scheme, and, if so, what were its observations?
The scheme is a significant advance in health and safety legislation, but it assists only a relatively small number of people. An enormous number of workers are exposed to dust hazards in the ordinary course of their employment. It is estimated that 250,000 come into regular contact with asbestos alone at frequent intervals during the course of their working lives.
We are dealing with a progressive disease which can be contracted in periods of exposure of less than three months. It can take 10 or 20 years to manifest itself, and it is a debilitating disease for which there is no cure.
This is a matter which has been neglected by officialdom for too many years. The first official concern was expressed by the Home Office in 1906, yet we are still considering in 1979 ways of helping sufferers. The Bill pays a small debt to some of the sufferers, but there is much more to be done.
The Government are making a modest advance and I hope that in the coming months we shall be able to make further, long-overdue reforms to help the thousands who suffer or will suffer from the effects of dust diseases.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. James Lomond: My constituents have much to thank the Labour Government for, both generally and for measures that have been especially helpful in Oldham. I think of measures such as temporary employment subsidy, the mobility allowance, the attendance allowance and, more particularly in Oldham, the help that the National Enterprise Board gave to Ferranti that saved many jobs. However, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the Bill will have a greater impact in my constituency than any measure that the Government have introduced in the past four years.
Oldham was a centre of the spinning and textile industries. Consequently, there are in Oldham many thousands of sufferers of byssinosis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment may recall an Adjournment debate in which he and I took part on Friday 14 March 1975—more than four years ago—in which we examined these matters and the impact that byssinosis has on the lives of many men, and especially women, in the textile industry. We talked about how they had waited for a long time for any lump-sum compensation for their industrial injuries.
I am pleased to be able to say tonight that the Government have recognised the need. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) to say that we should not make political capital out of measures such as the Bill. However, no matter how many hon. Members from all political parties took part in the pressure that has been put on successive Governments to bring forward a Bill of this sort, it was a Labour Government who produced such a Bill. I do not make political capital, but it should be recognised by the people that it was a Labour Government who acted. If there is political capital in that, so be it.
We should also remember that much of the pressure that was exerted came

from the trade union movement. That has been recognised tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The trade union movement has been the butt of many fierce attacks by Opposition Members, especially in recent months. It has been said that it is not responsible, that its members are bully boys and that the closed shop is something that it should not support. However, those same people often forget that the important piece of legislation that we are discussing and others like it arise from the humdrum, everyday work of the trade union movement.
Frequently the trade union movement is the only shield that is available for the poor people who are unable to stand up for themselves and who suffer from byssinosis. These people are not especially articulate. They know virtually nothing about the working of the law. They do not understand why their cases are not recognised by tribunals when it is obvious to them and all their friends that they have byssinosis. They do not understand these things and they look to their unions—the textile trade unions—for support and protection, and that is what they get.
When we are critical of trade unions, we should never forget that the support and protection that I have described is the sort of work that occupies a great deal of their time and results in benefits to those who perhaps have not even been in the trade union movement and who would otherwise never receive benefits or be recognised by society. I recognise that the Bill is a triumph for the trade union movement and an enormous benefit to the people of Oldham. A great "Thank you" comes from them to the Labour Party for bringing the Bill forward.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: I shall be brief in welcoming the Bill. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on a magnificent speech which demonstrated the manner in which he examined asbestosis as it affected his constituents. The degree of knowledge that he demonstrated has been unsurpassed in most debates in the House during this Parliament. For my hon. Friend, as for other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, especially my hon. Friends, the introduction and


enactment of the Bill mark an important milestone, albeit a small one.
I want to speak on behalf of the textile workers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Olham, East (Mr. Lamond). It is worth bearing in mind that the struggle for health and safety in the textile industry in many ways preceded the trade union movement. After all, it was Shaftesbury who looked at the conditions of factory workers 150 years ago and was particularly concerned about health and safety. The thought that it has taken 150 years to deal with the problem of byssinosis, or at least to recognise it to the extent that we are recognising it tonight, demonstrates the way in which our society in the past may have been remiss. For that reason alone, we should congratulate the Government on bringing the matter forward.
This is only one of the diseases affecting people in the textile industry. I recall going into mills 15 or 20 years ago. Two things impressed me. The first was the intolerable noise levels. These still exist in many mills and still remain to be dealt with. They must be dealt with if we are to make these workplaces at all tolerable. The second thing was the haze of dust hanging over everything in the mill. Even modern extraction equipment cannot deal with that kind of problem in a manner which will prevent the disease. I have heard textile officials say that where there is cotton working there will inevitably be disease, because they cannot get the degree of exactness needed in the extraction machinery to deal with the problem. But the fact that we are moving a step forward will be welcomed by all textile workers.
The struggle for recognition of the disease will continue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby indicated. Byssinosis is in exactly the same category as asbestosis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East said, workers in the industry cannot understand why they cannot get their ailment recognised before the appropriate medical panel. All of us from areas such as textile areas know of cases of constituents who come to us and can barely walk into our surgeries. We know that they suffer. The problem has always been that of pinning down the exact cause of the disease.
The unions have also been fighting for many years to extend the catchment area.

As I understand the position, the catchment area in the textile industry at the moment does not include man-made fibres or polyesters, yet there is evidence that similar diseases are caused in those industries by the nature of the process as much as by the nature of the product. We need to extend the catchment area in that respect.
I welcome the fact that the prescribed five-year waiting period for diagnosis in the textile industry is to be abolished on 6 April. That will be welcomed by everyone throughout the industry. What will be particularly welcomed is that at last a scheme is to introduced in an industry which has suffered even greater decline over the years than the slate quarrying industry, and in which literally thousands of employers have gone out of existence. At last there will be an opportunity for workers in the industry—who perhaps worked for half a dozen employers, all of whom have been swept away by the tide of foreign competition in the past—to have some means of redress. That in itself is the most important feature of the Bill.
I want to refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) concerning the cut-off period. The most traumatic post-war experience in the cotton textile industry was the Cotton Industry Act 1959. I hope that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) will not accuse me of being party political here, because his party sold that Act to textile workers as being a lifeline for survival. Anyone who cares to come round my constituency in North-East Lancashire will see the mansions owned by the former cotton barons and the cottages of the cotton workers. The employers were compensated by massive amounts in order to close down and break up the machinery. The workers were thrust out on to the dole, long before any redundancy payment scheme came into operation.
The 1959–61 period, when those massive closures were taking place under the auspices of a Tory Government, is a crucial date for workers in the cotton industry. Old firms, particularly family firms, disappeared and employers went into early retirement. Workers went on to the dole. Many of those people are now suffering from byssinosis. Will the cut-off period extend past that period?


In the textile industry this can be a very vital date indeed.
Much as we welcome schemes of this kind—whether to deal with pneumoconiosis among slate quarrymen, asbestosis among asbestos workers or byssinosis among textile workers—the answer can be found only in a genuine attempt to secure real health and safety measures at work. Until we extend ourselves fully, until we ensure that workers have control of their own working environment in such a way that these diseases can be eliminated, we shall have to resort to measures of this kind. But, no matter what is brought forward, there can be no compensation for health. It must be the task of the Labour Party and movement in general to further the boundaries of health and safety at work as the only lasting solution to this problem.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Like other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I want to add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State on what must have been for him considerable pleasure in introducing the Bill. I apologise that I was unable to be here for his opening speech.
I know that we have quite a bit of time because this is exempted business, but the hour is late. If the time were more appropriate, I could enter into the spirit of the debate, because this is a debating Chamber.
I want to pick up one comment made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who made a temperate and good speech. The hon. Gentleman said that years ago slate quarry workers were told that, far from harming them, the inhalation of the dust was in some peculiar way beneficial. We now know that that was not true. I remind the House that years ago the only certifiable disease in the mining industry was silicosis. Old miners, because of what they had been told by so-called expert medical opinion, used to suck pieces of coal to relieve heartburn. They were led to believe by much better educated and informed men than themselves that that demonstrated the efficaciousness of coal. They believed that coal dust could not harm them and that only dust from stone could.
There was an elaborate procedure for proving whether a man was suffering from silicosis. He had to have worked for so many years in a place which contained a certain percentage of stone. There was a whole rigmarole to be gone through. Men were dying in their thousands from the effects of coal dust. Pneumoconiosis is the genetic term that is now used to cover these diseases, including silicosis. It was called galloping consumption and under-nourishment. Men were dying from anything but the disease from which they were dying. Therefore, the hon. Member for Caernarvon was absolutely right in what he said. Experience has taught me to have a healthy scepticism when doctors pronounce on matters about which I have doubt.
I also want to comment on whether it is unseemly to make political capital out of this matter. I unashamedly proclaim to those who need to be told that the only party which has the will and the determination to help those in need is the Labour Party. That has been our proud record since 1945. The Bill will be another milestone on that long road. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) said that there was still much to be done, and I agree.
I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. I am particularly glad to see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven (Dr. Cunningham), who now has a Government position. We remember his valiant efforts when a Back Bencher to try to persuade the Government to act, after the Pearson report had been commissioned by the Tory Government to look at the possible solution to the iron ore workers' case. I am pleased to say that they, too, will be beneficiaries of the Bill. I do not know how many hundreds or thousands there are, but I believe that there is a considerable group.
My hon. Friend will have as much pleasure as anyone in seeing the Bill introduced and will give it his warmest support because he battled long and hard for it. He battled on when the Government had introduced the Bill to help the mine workers. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) here. He will know the history of that Bill and why it was introduced. It has been of great benefit to


the miners, although there is some criticism that much more money is needed, because many matters have been uncovered since the introduction of that Bill, welcome as it was. We may find later that there are little things in this Bill that we need to amend and others that we need to add.
We must always have at the back of our minds that our duty is to help those who suffer. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon that we have a duty to help not only the men who are suffering but the widows. We should enrich what remains of their lives and try to compensate them. We can never bring their husbands back. I know from personal experience in my own family, and from seeing people in the mining village where I lived and in St. Helens and in my constituency, the devotion that the widows have given in nursing sick husbands, seeing them fade away and die. If that is at the back of our minds and we try to help not only those who still suffer but the widows, it will be something well done.
I end on a note that will not surprise one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. There are several references in the Bill to old cases. I hope that Opposition Members will not mind my making a little political dig; I know that it is improper of me. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was trying last Tuesday to disabuse Plaid Cymru Members of the idea that they could claim that they alone were responsible for the Bill, when he was giving its history, I said that I hoped it was a further indication of the Government's determination to go into those avenues that were still to be explored, though some of them were known, and remedy those injustices that had long existed, even from the time of our first great reforming Act of 1948. I particularly mentioned the old cases.
My right hon. Friend said that he could not pronounce on that matter but said that certainly these were things that would need to be done. He hoped that the Bill and the Pearson report would indicate the way in which the matter should go. He was sympathetic. I hope that the sympathy will be more than a mere expression of words. There is an old Lancashire saying that sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef: it is no good. We want something positive.
The next Bill on this subject will be introduced by a Labour Government, because we have the will and the determination to do so. The Labour Benches are packed with Members such as my hon. Friends the Member for Sowerby and for Bolsover and others whom I shall not name by constituency who have vast knowledge of their industry and what needs to be done. I hope that when Labour is returned at the election one of its first actions will be to carry on with this reform and to introduce a Bill to help those categories who fell under the old Workmen's Compensation Act and who cannot sue anybody. This Bill quite properly helps those who cannot sue because their employers have gone out of business. Certain categories arising under the old Workmen's Compensation Act could not sue because of the hurdles they had to jump. The Labour Government removed those hurdles in their great reforming Act which became operative on 5 July 1948.
I remind hon. Members that people who suffered under the old Workmen's Compensation Act and who usually earned miserable wages had the choice of accepting compensation or forgoing that and suing their employer: they could not follow both courses. If they sued their employer, the greatest hurdle they had to overcome was the doctrine of common employment. Put simply, it was a shared risk. So the old workmen's compensation cases could not use.
We are rewarding—I use that word in its broadest sense; a better way of putting it is that we are trying to help—men who cannot sue in present circumstances, for one reason or another. The estimated number of those in this category is 25,000. They are the old workmen's compensation cases, the category known as "latents". I have a Bill before the House which will tackle this problem and the implementation of which will not cost a great sum. I shall be quite blunt and say that the only thing holding it up is the fact that it is considered by the civil servants to be administratively inconvenient: it is not quite as smooth-running as they would like.
I want the message to go out to those civil servants. The message is that which can be seen scribbled on walls "Parliament rules—OK?" Let my hon. Friend pass that message on to the civil servants.
I give a very warm welcome to the Bill. It is a further indication of the Labour Party's will and determination to help those most in need. I have no shame in saying that I will broadcast its merit wherever I go, as I am sure will all my hon. Friends. I feel sure that those hon. Members who have helped to bring the Bill forward are greatly delighted. I have the greatest possible pleasure in giving it my blessing and expressing the hope that it is a forerunner of those Bills which the Labour Party will introduce on its return to Government at the election.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Debates on matters concerned with social security in the context of silicosis, pneumoconiosis and such matters have usually been dominated, until recently, by Members representing mining constituencies. It is refreshing that tonight there have been several speeches, mainly from the Labour Benches but one from the Tory Benches, which have made it clear that there are other Members who are very knowledgeable in this subject. I am pleased that they have been able to express themselves so clearly, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), Rossendale (Mr. Noble) and Ince (Mr. McGuire).
I take the view that when the pneumoconiosis scheme was introduced, at a cost of well over £100 million—by a Labour Government—a massive gate was opened, because we were moving into completely new territory in terms of compensation at common law. The thalidomide case was an extension of that. There is no doubt that there will be many more calls in this area. This is just one of the many small areas in which, the gate having been opened, certain people are now being included in various schemes.
For the benefit of Opposition Members, principally those on the Tory Benches, my guess is that they must bear in mind that when they give general welcomes to Bills of this kind, they ought to be telling the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), that such measures involve a lot of Government spending. I get a little tired of hearing the Leader of the Opposition and her close

circle of friends—the gang of four, or whatever they are—complaining about public spending in general without being specific about it. I am fed up with hearing about "all this waste" when along comes the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to give a general welcome to another specific Bill.
It all adds up to money. This can be found only from taxation. I am prepared to put my hand into my back pocket as often as anyone to pay out for these cases, because the money cannot come from anywhere else. I am not one of those who think that we ought to pay for this by raising VAT and pushing up the retail price index. It should be done in a more progressive way by the taxation system attacking people such as the Duke of Westminster, who can get away with £500 million or the £2,000 million that he has managed to get away with recently.
Therefore, let us be quite clear. When we are all giving general welcomes to this Bill, let us understand that it means the expenditure of hard cash. One cannot reconcile spending money of this kind and opening up this great arena, which started with compensation for pneumoconiosis and has continued through to this measure, thalidomide and all the rest, with Opposition leaders in a general election campaign talking about the Government "spending your money"—as the Leader of the Opposition said tonight on television.
The Government spend taxpayers money mainly—not entirely, but 99 per cent. of the time—on schemes such as this, or on providing education, or wages for the Army, or the police, and all the other things. The total equation comes to the bill which must be paid by taxpayers. This is another example of it.
That is one reason why Saatchi & Saatchi never have Tory posters up condemning the Labour Government for what they have done for people disadvantaged in these areas. There are plenty of posters about other matters, but Saatchi & Saatchi are very wary about sticking up posters concerning Labour's attitude, political judgment and will in terms of looking after the disabled. I do not expect that we shall see any such posters during the coming election campaign, because people outside this place understand only too well that if there are to be any


improvements in this area, they are bound to come from a Labour Government.
I say this to my hon. Friends. Never mind about what people are saying in terms of what the issues will be in the election campaign. Let us campaign upon the question of looking after pensioners, the disabled and these groups. This is one of our strongest points; it always has been. Despite all the problems that the Government have had and the failures, and the mess into which they have got themselves on occasions, we have managed in this area to hold up our heads high.

Mr. Noble: Has not my hon. Friend done an injustice to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? The right hon. Member says that he will save money on industrial subsidies. According to the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), £200 million will be saved from the coal mining industry. Does not that mean, therefore, that fewer people will be able to find jobs at all in various industries, so that ultimately there will be fewer people to whom to pay compensation, anyway? Is not that the way in which the right hon. Member's philosophy goes?

Mr. Skinner: It is even worse than that. It applies to measures of this kind. If there is an attempt to cut back £200 million from the coal industry, I can say, based on experience, that some of the money that will not be used will come from that which should be spent on looking after the safety of miners. That will be the first area to be cut. The accent will not be on productivity and producing coal. It will be on saving money where it does not immediately affect productivity. The result will be even more miners suffering from pneumonconiosis because of the lack of investment in the area which concentrates on that aspect.
This debate is like many others in which we have taken part. The Bill has had a general welcome. It is a specific matter, but it is one on which we can say to people outside that we have brought forward a measure. I do not take any notice of the suggestion which was made outside this House but, incidentally, not inside it by the Welsh nationalists that this was a cynical measure. I took it for granted that, when it was included in the Queen's Speech, it

would be on its way some time. I did not get terribly excited because the Government were looking into the pros and cons of including those affected in the textile industry and the pottery industry. I wanted to see that happen. I wanted further inclusions in terms of the chemical industry. There is an area here. This gate which has been opened will result in justifiable claims from all those working in such firms as Bolsover Coalite, Staveley Chemicals next door in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), and many others up and down the country where prescribed diseases have been accepted by the Industrial Advisory Board, such as cancer of the liver and all those arising out of different processes. Here, too, there will be justifiable attempts to get those included. So there is no doubt that we are in an area where even more money must be spent.
There are some other minor matters concerning this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby touched on most of the technicalities involved in trying to improve the ways and means of people getting benefits through the medical appeal tribunals, the pneumoconiosis medical panels, and so on. When the Labour Party is re-elected, my right hon. Friend ought to be thinking in terms of trying to do something about the 10 per cent. rule and people not being able to get any benefit if they do not reach the 10 per cent. level. That is an area which must be looked at. Another aspect concerns the pneumoconiosis medical panels, which ought to be made to publish their reports saying why people have failed on successive occasions. The problem of latent cases is another good example. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince that this week we are trying to draw up the manifesto for the next election, and I want him to give me some assistance and tell the members of the Cabinet who will be meeting us on Friday to insist that a reference to latent cases is made in the manifesto.
If we do not get it into the manifesto, those civil servants who unfortunately dominate the Government on many occasions will say to the Minister concerned, whoever he is, "I am sorry, but you cannot have latent cases brought into a Bill becasue it is not in your manifesto". The top civil servants—I am not talking


about those who were outside the gates this afternoon; I am talking about those in the higher echelons—will say "I am sorry, Minister, but it is not in your manifesto." So I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince and to others that we must lobby Cabinet Ministers before the election to get the latent cases into the manifesto. If we do that, the civil servants cannot cavil when we come back after the election.
That, in a nutshell, is how I see these matters. The Government have provided the political will and the wherewithal to introduce this measure. The Tories now say that they welcome it. But I have no doubt that they will leave this Chamber and trot along to their constituents talking about this Government and their spending. They talk about waste. This is not waste. It is looking after people who have been ignored for too long. There are many more millions in our society who want a leg over the next stile. I came into Parliament to help lift them over that stile, but I know when I am doing it that I have to find the money to pay them so that they can get over that stile. It cannot be done by saying, on the one hand, that taxes will be cut and, on the other, that these benefits will be provided by a compassionate Tory Government. The equation does not add up.
I welcome the Government's approach. This must be about the first time that I have said that in five years. I am only sorry that they have not introduced a similar measure during the past five years. If they had, there would have been no question of a poor showing in opinion polls. Nevertheless, this is a good measure. We must welcome it. People in all the constituencies will support and praise the Government for introducing it.

Mr. Harold Walker: With the permission of the House, I should like to respond to some of the matters that have been raised in what has generally been a good-natured, constructive and well-informed debate. Some of the speeches have shown a firm grasp of the issues and the complex matters underlying them. Not least do I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to use his own words, has been

given the rare opportunity to congratulate the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), in a speech that has been rightly praised, asked about publicity for this measure. I have a feeling that it will be widely publicised between now and 3 May in the areas where it has most relevance. None the less, I take his point and I will see what else can be done. My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and Rossendale (Mr. Noble) reminded me, in referring to their constituency interests, of the Lancashire cotton textile industry and the disease of byssinosis. I recall Lord Hale, when he was Member for one of the Oldham seats, moving the House emotionally more than most speakers I have heard with his account of the previous problems of sufferers of byssinosis in that industry. My wife's parents died in recent years from respiratory diseases incurred in their occupation in the Lancashire cotton spinning industry.
Many speakers in this debate have recognised that they raised matters which are not within my responsibility and were not directly related to issues before the House. They will have noted, however, that Ministers from the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Security have been present and have listened to the debate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will be writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and others. I am grateful to those Ministers for their presence and their support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby asked whether this scheme had been put before the asbestosis advisory panel. I do not know. I can only say that when the working party was set up we asked it to take advice and guidance from whatever sources seemed relevant and appropriate. In public speeches I made in Wales, and also in a parliamentary written answer, I have encouraged people to submit evidence to the working party. I know that some outside evidence was submitted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and other hon. Members asked whether diseases other than byssinosis, pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma were within the scope of the scheme. I stress again the general principle on which


the scheme is necessarily based. In order to have a valid claim, claimants must satisfy certain tests. The first is that they are suffering from one of the diseases that fall within the descriptions of pneumoconiosis, byssionsis or diffuse mesothelioma. They must be receiving industrial disablement benefit in respect of that disease or, if the person has died, the dependant or widower must be receiving the appropriate death benefit.
This inevitably rules out some of the diseases which have been mentioned. The basic principle of our approach distinguishes the diseases in the Bill from other disabling injuries or diseases, such as farmer's lung. It often takes so long for the diagnosis to be made that the employer has gone out of business or cannot be identified. When someone is crippled by the loss of a limb or an eye, that is an event in time; the employer can be identified and is available to be sued if the injured worker has a claim on the grounds of negligence or breach of statutory duty.
I am informed that, unlike these diseases, farmer's lung is so swift in its onset that until recently it was regarded by the DHSS as an industrial accident rather than a disease. That means that invariably the employer is available for a civil action to be brought against him. This scheme is intended to give redress to those who have not been able to bring a similar claim because of the lapse of time.

Mr. Madden: The list of diseases that I read was contained in a table headed "Industrial chest diseases", issued by the DHSS. It included farmer's lung and the other diseases to which I referred. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would reconsider what he has said and publish a definitive list of the diseases covered by this scheme. This is a possible cause of concern and dissatisfaction. It is something which we should clear up—certainly with farmer's lung, which gives rise to a considerable number of cases.

Mr. Walker: I understand the point, but I beg my hon. Friend to remember that we have had to defend, against considerable resistance in some cases, a measure to redress the grievances of those at present within the scope of the Bill. We have done so on the basis that I have

described. This is the justification put to me by Sir Elwyn Jones and representatives of the Wales TUC, the Labour Party of Wales and the TUC in London, for example. They have said that these diseases, which are slow in their onset, should be distinguished. Had we not been able to persuade others to accept that, we might have prejudiced our whole approach and might not have had the Bill before us now.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but he will see, I think—it is open to examination and argument—that the same strength of argument does not apply to the categories he mentioned, because often those affected will have an identifiable employer against whom to pursue a civil action.
I want to be frank, on farmer's lung in particular—my hon. Friend also referred to beryllium poisoning and to nitrous fumes poisoning; and there will be others. We must stick to the basis on which the scheme is founded.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I appreciate the underlying principle to which the Minister has referred, but are the pottery and iron ore workers referred to by the Prime Minister on 27 March covered? Does the same apply to the gypsum workers who have been referred to?

Mr. Walker: I want to deal with the gypsum workers in a moment. The point I wish to stress is that the scheme is related not to specific industries but to specific diseases. As described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), the generic term "pneumoconiosis" includes silicosis, asbestosis, kaolinosis, the disease that is contracted by the Cornish clay miners, and a whole range of such disease, including byssinosis and diffuse mesothelioma.
If a person, whether in the gypsum industry, working in a brickyard or anywhere else, has been able to satisfy the Department of Health and Social Security that he is suffering from one of these diseases and is receiving the appropriate industrial benefit in respect of that disease, or the sufferer has died as a result of those diseases and his widow or dependant has received the appropriate death benefit, he is likely to be within the scope of the scheme. I say "likely" because he has satisfied the first test.


He then has to satisfy the second test, as set out in clause 2 of the Bill, which is that he is not able to identify the employer for whom he was working al the time he contracted the disease and the employer is therefore no longer available for action to be taken against him.
The third test that must be satisfied is that the person concerned has not already brought an action—whether it failed of succeeded—against that employer or has reached a compromise agreement to settle out of court.
The gypsum worker, brickyard worker or anyone else suffering from one of these prescribed diseases as covered by the Bill and receiving the appropriate benefit has satisfied the first test of eligibility for a claim under the scheme.

Mr. Wigley: Clause 2 (2) (c) uses the words
that every relevant employer of the deceased has ceased to carry on business".
Will the Minister consider the situation where perhaps a quarryman or other worker has worked for two or three different companies, any one of which may have caused or contributed towards his state of health? The latest company to which he may have given the predominant part of his working life may have gone out of business but perhaps one of the companies for which he worked earlier is still in business. Will the Minister assure us that a reasonable attitude would be taken towards that person and that he would not miss out in such circumstances?

Mr. Walker: I shall not pretend that every case will be straightforward and clearcut. But it would seem to me that if a person had worked for a succession of employers in circumstances in which he could have contracted the prescribed disease and one of those employers was still in existence and available to be the subject of action, it might well be that those administering the scheme will have to say "No, you really ought to take your action against that employer".
It is no part of our responsibility to take on those matters which are properly the responsibility of an employer. To do so is indeed unjust to those who would be outside the scope of the scheme precisely because they are in occupations

where they would be able to take legal action. Built into the scheme in the Bill are later provisions which would enable an appeal to be made to the Secretary of State. I hope that that is some encouragement to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) with regard to the possibly doubtful cases which he may have in mind.
The comparison of the proposed payments with those available under the National Coal Board scheme has been raised a number of times. It has been said that the payments made might be worse than those that might hypothetically have been available if the person had had an employer to sue. I stress again that what the worker might have been able to get is purely hypothetical. We all know that the payments vary substantially from case to case and court to court. It is very much a matter of conjecture.
The National Coal Board scheme is, I stress, a voluntary scheme entered into by the parties in the industry to avoid the need to enter into possibly many thousands of expensive cases. In settling the appropriate rates of compensation I have not the slightest doubt—though I do not have the authority for saying so—that one of the factors taken into account is what might otherwise have been available had the individuals who will be beneficiaries under the scheme taken the legal action that might have been available to them following the Pickles case.
I was asked about retrospection, whether there would be a retrospective cut-off and whether that would affect the amount payable to widows and dependants. The National Coal Board scheme, which we have used as our yardstick, provides less generous compensation to the dependants of workers who died before 26 January 1970—that is nearly five years before the introduction of the scheme—than it does to the dependants of those who died after that date. I understand that there may be several reasons for this, not the least being the cost involved. But the DHSS records of beneficiaries are not available more than five years after their deaths. In many cases there would be no way of ensuring that a sufferer was suffering from the


disease or of determining his age and percentage of disability on the first assessment which is also used to determine the dependants' benefit.
However, the regulations that would incorporate the tables of benefit for the sufferers and dependants under the scheme have not yet been drawn up, and they will be subject to scrutiny and affirmation by Parliament. I have asked that in drawing them up my officials should consider whether it might be possible to establish some scheme of compensating the widows of those who died more than five years before the introduction of the scheme, perhaps in a more generous way than that employed by the Coal Board. I do not think that I can reasonably go beyond that somewhat reasonable and tentative half commitment tonight. We shall see what happens when we put the eventual regulations before the House.
I can assure the House that there will be no absolute retrospective cut-off for claimants other than that which automatically arises under the provisions of clause 2(1) by which the applicant has to be in receipt of disablement benefit under the industrial injuries scheme which was introduced in 1948. There will be no cut-off between 1948 and the introduction of the scheme this year.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) asked about self-employed farmers. I have referred to farmer's lung, but let me deal more generally with the self-employed. There may be some one who is suffering from one of the prescribed diseases but is in self-employment. If he incurred his disease while working for a former employer who subsequently went out of business, he will be eligible under the scheme. If he incurred the disease while in self-employment he would not be eligible under the scheme.
I may not have answered all the points raised in the debate. I shall scrutinise the Official Report tomorrow and if there are outstanding points that I have not answered adequately I shall write to the hon. Members who raised them.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon reminded me of my visit to Llanberis last July. It was a moving experience to have those hundreds of people waiting in the rain to present a massive petition to me. I told them that I would feel it a great

personal reproach if we had not been able, before the expiry of this Parliament, to devise some scheme that would help. I hope that the hon. Member is able to assure them that I have fulfilled at least that part of my job.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Further proceedings stood postponed pursuant to Order [30 March].

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for lump sum payments to or in respect of certain persons who are, or were immediately before they died, disabled by pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments under that Act;
(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State which is attributable to that Act; and
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums repaid to the Scretary of State by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) BILL

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [30 March].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

Clause 1

LUMP SUM PAYMENTS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: I was invited by the Under-Secretary to intervene at this stage after he gave way to me during his opening speech on Second Reading. He invited me then to intervene in the general debate on clause 2, but having considered what


he said I think that perhaps it might be to the convenience of the Committee if I were to ask him a question in the general debate on this clause.
That brings me to the question of the effect of this Bill on those constituents of mine who are engaged in gypsum mining. The Under-Secretary was kind enough to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) when he was asked about the impact of the Bill on gypsum miners. I have shown an interest in this subject over many years and in the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who is temporarily out of the Chamber, replied on 1 March 1976 I intervened when the hon. Gentleman wound up for the Government. I drew attention then to the fact that many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party were interested in this matter.
I would like an assurance from the Under-Secretary about the definition in clause 1(3). He told us that the word "pneumoconiosis" covered a number of diseases, including silicosis and kaolinosis. I should like an assurance that respiratory diseases caused by gypsum mining are caught under the three headings which appear in clause 1(3). I want to be certain that in future we avoid the possibility of some clever doctor, working for the Department of Health and Social Security, saying, in the case of a miner suffering from a disease caused by gypsum mining, that that disease was technically different and was not covered by the three definitions.
I know that the Under-Secretary may find it difficult to give me the assurance that no respiratory condition caused by gypsum mining will not come within this cover, but I should like his assurance that there is no respiratory condition caused by gypsum mining which does not come within the cover.
If I am assured that so far as the Department is aware all the conditions of respiratory disease caused to gypsum miners will be caught by the definition, I shall be satisfied. I understand that events may show a currently unknown medical condition which may fall without the definition. We never know what may happen in the future.
I am thinking of gypsum miners who work at the British Gypsum plant at

Kirby Thore, in the north of my constituency, which is one of the largest plasterboard plants in Europe. Most of these workers will be covered because they work for a prosperous firm which creates many jobs. But the Boazman firm, which was an employer of gypsum miners, has gone out of business and the family is now divorced from the company.
I am worried about clause 1(3). I hope that I can be assured that gypsum workers will be treated as fairly as slate and iron ore workers. If the provision is sufficiently wide, I shall not delay the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: I can assure the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that the gypsum workers in his constituency will be treated fairly under the scheme. I cannot assure him that a gypsum worker who suffers from a respiratory disease which is incurred in the course of his employment will necessarily qualify or pass the first test laid down in clause 2. He will have to qualify for an industrial injury disease benefit from the DHSS which falls within the pneumoconiosis category.
I do not know which respiratory diseases are caused by gypsum. For all I know, a disease such as farmer's lung might be caused by gypsum, and I said earlier that that would not fall within the scheme. On the other hand, gypsum may cause the fibrotic condition which is generally diagnosed as pneumoconiosis and, therefore, it will fall within the scope of the scheme.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am being unhelpful. It would be unhelpful to mislead the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I shall reflect on and discuss the matter with officials. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman soon.

Mr. Jopling: I know the Minister well enough to know that he will honour his undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 5, in page 2,


line 29 after "Injuries" insert "and Diseases.".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss manuscript amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. Walker: I apologise for introducing these minor drafting amendments, which correct the proper title of the Act to which reference is made in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Manuscript amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 36, after "Injuries" insert "and Diseases".

No. 7, in page 2, line 43, after "Injuries" insert "and Diseases".—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael McGuire: May I seek confirmation from the Minister that clause 2(2)(b) is a provision which those hon. Members who are interested in industrial injuries legislation have wanted to see for a long time? Am I right in assuming that when, for example, a widow is not awarded industrial death benefit because the pneumoconiosis medical panel pronounces that her husband had not died as a result of a disease for which he was receiving disablement benefit, she will qualify under the Bill?
Under the legislation affecting miners, if the medical panel pronounces that a death did not result from an industrial disease, the fact that the man may have been receiving 100 per cent. disablement benefit is not relevant. If my assumption is correct, we are taking a considerable step forward, and I look forward to a similar provision being introduced in legislation that currently prevents widows or other dependants from receiving death benefit.

Mr. Wigley: If the interpretation of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) is correct, I welcome the provision. However, may I ask the Minister to consider the converse of that position? Will he comment on the situation of a man who dies from the effects of a disease that is not diagnosed until a post mortem is held? Will the dependants of that man be disqualified from the scheme? If so, that is a considerable worry.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister also comment on those cases where silicosis, for example, is not the first cause of death but is a second or third cause? I have details of a case where it was a secondary cause, the primary cause being "natural causes".

Mr. Harold Walker: I am not sure that I can answer the question of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) immediately, but the answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is "Yes".
My hon. Friend asked whether, when a man who is receiving disablement benefit dies, his dependants will be eligible under the scheme. I think that the answer is "Yes". The Bill clearly states:
In the case of the dependant of a person who, immediately before he died, was disabled by a disease to which this Act applies, the conditions of entitlement are …
(b) that death benefit is payable to or in respect of the dependant by reason of the diseased's death as a result of the disease, or that disablement benefit was payable to the deceased in respect of the disease immediately before he died".
If a person receiving benefit dies, his widow or dependant would have satisfied one of the tests of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon asked about the case of a man who had not had the disease diagnosed before he died and who was therefore not receiving a benefit. If a post mortem revealed that he died as a result of one of the diseases included in the Bill, his dependant would be brought within the scheme under the first part of that condition. It seems that that is covered by the first part of subsection 2(b), which states:
death benefit is payable to or in respect of the dependant by reason of the deceased's death as a result of the disease".

Mr. Wigley: Mr. Wigley rose—

Mr. Walker: Before the hon. Gentleman shoots me down, let me tell him that I know what he is about to say. No doubt he wishes to say "Yes, but who will be the arbiter if there is a clash of opinion between, for example, the Department of Health and Social Security's own arrangements and its subsequent examination of the organs and a coroner's verdict?" The present practice is that the DHSS or medical authorities overrule the decision of a coroner. We cannot depart from the


principle on which the scheme is based and which follows the DHSS's practice. If the hon. Gentleman is about to say that that is totally unsatisfactory, I must say that having outlined to the Committee the way in which we depend on the Department, his quarrel, if he has one, lies not with me but with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Wigley: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said, regrettable though that may be in some circumstances. I wish to ask him how clause 2(2)(b) relates to clause 2(1)(a), the latter stating:
the conditions of entitlement are—
(a) that disablement benefit is payable to him in respect of the disease".
If the sufferer has not had the disease diagnosed before death, it seems that benefit will not be payable. Does such a person come within the scheme?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not link the two provisions in that way. Clause 2(1) refers to a person
who is disabled by a disease
and his eligibility. Clause 2(2)(b) deals with dependants.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

DEPENDANTS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (4).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1, entitled "Payments for the benefit of minors, &c."

Mr. Walker: The Committee will have noted that subsection (4) refers to persons incapable of managing their own affairs and, in that event, the Secretary of State having power to appoint a trustee to act on their behalf. To limit the Bill in that way to dependants could put sufferers at a disadvantage who may be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Secretary of State should be able to appoint trustees to receive payments as in the Bill as drafted he is able to do with dependants.

It makes sense and is equitable to extend the Bill in the manner that is proposed by removing subsection (4) and subsequently replacing it by a separate clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 11, at end insert—
'( ) In the application of subsection (1) above to Scotland, for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(c) if neither of the preceding paragraphs applies but he left a person residing with who, but for some impediment to marriage, would be entitled to obtain a declarator of marriage with him by cohabitation with habit and repute, that person;".'
The amendment is designed to make an adaptation for Scotland of the phrase "reputed spouse" that appears in clause 3(1)(c). That phrase is intended to cover a man who is living with a woman who is held up by him as his wife but who is not married to him. In England that term poses no difficulty. Something like it has already been used in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The object of the amendment is to put the matter beyond doubt and to ensure that the same classes of people are covered in Scotland as in England.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 40, leave out 'passing' and insert 'coming into force'.
This merely corrects a drafting error to bring subsection (4)(b) into line with the corresponding provision in subsection (4)(a).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. James Lamond: I should like to say a few words about subsection (1)(b), which lays down a
period of 12 months beginning with the relevant date or within such further period as the Secretary of State may allow.
That is for making a claim under the clause.
It has been strongly represented to me by trade union officials in the Oldham area that they consider 12 months to be an insufficient period in which to make claims. The matter is quite complex, especially when we begin to consider the dependants who may be involved. It takes some time before information of this kind, even with the best of publicity, reaches the ears of many of the people who are entitled to make claims.
As my hon. Friend will know from his experience in the Oldham area, quite often it will be towards the end of the 12 months before news of the scheme has reached everyone who is eligible, especially when large numbers of people are involved. I realise that there is a provision here for a further period such as the Secretary of State may allow, but on behalf of the people who may have claims I am asking the Secretary of State to be generous in his interpretation of the subsection. I hope that he will be prepared to extend it, as he has with other things in the past. I know that he takes a generous view. I hope that he will in this case also.

Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) has not overlooked—I am sure he has not—that the relevant date is not the date of commencement of the Act but the date on which the person becomes eligible for the appropriate benefit from the Department of Health and Social Security. It seems to me that 12 months is a reasonable time. None the less, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we have provided an opportunity for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion by the words
or within such further period as the Secretary of State may allow.
In clause 5 the Secretary of State has some discretion in reconsidering whether a payment should be made on certain grounds. I think my hon. Friend will be assured that there is ample discretion for the Secretary of State. We shall take note of what my hon. Friend said about exercising that discretion in a flexible way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 25, leave out "one month" and insert "three months'.
I am sure that the House will recognise both the need for this amendment and the good sense of it. When the Bill was drafted, it was envisaged that its passage through Parliament might take six to eight weeks and that there would be a period for undertaking the preparatory work on the regulations and creating the necessary administrative organisation.
In the new circumstances, if the interval before the Bill comes into force is not extended, it will come into force weeks before either the regulations are ready to put before the House for approval or the administrative arrangements are completed. I am sure that the House will recognise that it makes sense to bring the legislation into force when we believe that we shall have the regulations and the administrative machinery ready and not have the nonsense of somebody saying "The Act is in force; I want to make a claim" and the Government having to say that Parliament has not approved the regulations.
We hope to have the regulations ready for the end of the three-month period and to lay them before Parliament. Therefore, we hope to be processing claims in the early autumn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINORS &C.

'Where a payment under this Act falls to be made to a person who is under the age of 18 or incapable of managing his own affairs, then, subject to section 3(3) above, the payment shall be made for his benefit by paying it to such trustees as the Secretary of State may appoint to be held by them upon such trusts or, in Scotland, for such purposes and upon such conditions as may be declared by the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do not adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn]

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The most convenient form of communication in our society today is the telephone. The fact that it exists in the privacy of one's house lends a sense of privacy to the conversation. Indeed, the fact that most normal conversations continue without interruption from a crossed line gives to a telephone conversation an aura which is belied by the practice.
The telephone is now an automatic instrument. But the Post Office has a system of checking the efficacy of its arrangements by tapping from time to time and listening to conversations to ensure that the system is working properly. No one who knows of that arrangement would complain too much since it is intended to help better communication. But the power to do that means that the Post Office also has the power to tap telephone calls for whatever reason. The real issue that I wish to raise is whether that power ought to be controlled.
In a recent judgment in the Chancery Division, Vice-Chancellor Megarry ruled that, since in English law there is always a freedom to do whatever is not prohibited by law, anybody can tap a telephone, or at any rate the Post Office has the power to tap a telephone for whatever purpose it likes and to pass the information on to whomsoever it likes, because there is no specified restriction upon its power.
Over the years a practice has become institutionalised of allowing the Home Secretary to issue warrants, on application by the police or the security service, to instruct the Post Office to tap a telephone and to pass on the information to the authorities. But, as Vice-Chancellor

Megarry pointed out, that power has no legal authority. It is simply a way of providing some kind of check on the absolute power of the Post Office to tap a telephone if it wishes.
The truth is that the Post Office, the police and the security services do not have to ask the Home Secretary at all for his warrant if they do not want to. They could if they wished tap a telephone and use the information for whatever purpose they liked.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say, as he said in a written answer, that he is quite satisfied with the existing arrangements, that they follow the recommendations of the Birkett committee, which did no more than to approve the existing arrangements at that stage, and that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But the fact is that none of us knows, because none of us knows what is happening inside the Post Office. None of us knows whether those who feel the need to tap always apply in the usual way to the Home Secretary.
For that reason, as well as the need to give an assurance about privacy, the learned judge suggested that there should be legislation in this area. I raise the issue tonight because it has long been my concern that in English law there is a great loophole. Almost all the basic freedoms which are guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights are protected in English law, save and except the right of privacy.
For about 13 years I have been trying to bring about a law of privacy. I got to the point of a Second Reading debate with a Bill of Mr. Brian Walden's which was deflected by the then Home Secretary into a committee chaired by Mr. Kenneth Younger. I fear that that committee's report is now languishing in the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department or somewhere in between. Very little has been done to implement even the rather lukewarm proposals of that report.
I still hold to my view that it would be far better if there were a civil law to prohibit intrusion into privacy, for whatever reason, save and except in special circumstances that would be decided by the statute. If there were such a law it


would prevent all unauthorised telephone tapping. I would prefer to deal with the matter in that way, but the learned judge suggested that there should be a special Act to prohibit telephone tapping.
It may be that this is the first step towards protection of privacy in this area. What I am absolutely sure about is that none of us who is worried about telephone tapping will be reassured simply by the Home Secretary's assertion that he looks at all requests for authorisation very carefully and takes the decision himself. We have no way of knowing how many applications there are and whether the applications under the heads "serious crime" and "security", the two heads confirmed by the Birkett committee, are as restricted as they were at the time the committee sat, or whether "serious crime" and "security" are now more widely interpreted.
It was clear from the report of the Birkett committee that the committee considered security applications to relate to the infiltration of Communists or Fascists into areas of sensitivity in the public service and considered serious crime to be that kind of crime which would merit a sentence of more than three years' imprisonment on a first offence and which was ordinarily an offence where evidence could not be obtained in any other way and the telephone tap seemed to be a sensible way of obtaining such information. We do not know whether that is still the way in which the matter is considered and whether one still applies the same test.
The Birkett committee pointed out that the Home Office, prior to its report, had restricted the applications for warrants in relation to offences of obscene letters, and so on, because it was not then regarded as serious crime. Does serious crime still include the transmission of cannabis? Cannabis, after all, is a drug and is still prohibited. Yet the usage of cannabis in the country has now risen to such proportions that there is a strong lobby which regards smoking cannabis as nothing like as serious as it once was. Are warrants still issued in relation to the discovery, sale and trafficking of cannabis?
In relation to security, there is a fair amount of evidence that the Special Branch takes an interest now not only in

Communists and Fascists or spies from other countries but in a number of political activities which raise very considerable and heated discussion as to whether there is a proper danger to the State from the activities of those who are politically Left wing or even politically Right wing but where those involved would consider that they were exercising their normal democratic rights. Are warrants issued in relation to people who are politically sensitive in that sort of way but who are not spying on behalf of a foreign Power or engaging in activities which are dedicated to overthrowing the regime in this country on behalf of a foreign Power? It would be regarded as not a proper exercise of the power to issue a warrant to police where they were concerned only with political activities within the trade unions of those exercising the democratic right to try to change the present economic system.
These questions arise simply because there is no formalised way of knowing how the Home Secretary exercises his power and in what sense anybody who does not apply for a warrant would be in breach of the law if he tapped a telephone.
The numbers given by Birkett in his report—they are the only time numbers were given—indicated that between 1945 and 1955 the number of telephone tap-pings rose by five times from 56 in 1955 to 241 in 1955. In 1973, when I had a similar Adjournment debate, the then Minister of State pooh-poohed the report in the Daily Mail to the effect that the number had risen to 1,241 and said that that was a ludicrously high figure. It would not have been out of line, however, with the rise which occurred in the 10 years between 1945 and 1955; and, as serious crime has increased since 1955, some increase is to be expected in the number of warrants issued in respect of crime at any rate. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary could now give some indication of the present scale of issue of warrants. But, again, one would really want to have a properly authorised system.
For that reason, I can only say that I agree with the Vice-Chancellor that there ought to be a Bill which would indicate that in general telephone tapping was illegal, that it could be authorised only in certain circumstances, that the certain circumstances would be set out


in the Bill, that the authority would come either from the Home Secretary or from a High Court judge—I would prefer that it was from a High Court judge—and that in those circumstances the numbers would be given each year in order that there would at least be some public scrutiny of the exercise of this power.
I accept that it is unconscionable, as the judge said, that we should be so out of line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which we have accepted as part of our legislative regime, although it is not enforceable before our courts. I take the argument which he gave. I quote from the judgment:
However much the protection of the public against crime demands that in proper cases the police should have the assistance of telephone tapping, I would have thought that in any civilised system of law the claims of liberty and justice would require that telephone users should have effective and independent safeguards against possible abuses.
The fact that a telephone user is suspected of crime increases rather than diminishes this requirement. Suspicions, however reasonably held, may sometimes prove to be wholly unfounded.
If there were effective and independent safeguards, these would not only exclude some cases of excessive zeal but also by their mere existence, provide some degree of reassurance for those who are resentful of the police or believe themselves to be persecuted
For that reason, I urge the Home Secretary to reconsider the appeal of the judge that legislation is approved.

12.53 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Debates on the subject of telephone interception happen infrequently. It is not a subject which lends itself readily to debate in Parliament, partly because it is not the practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has said, to disclose any details about the use and practice of interception. That practice commands wide acceptance in the House, and I do not propose to depart from it tonight. But I welcome the opportunity of restating the principles and procedures on which the interception is based. It is an area in which there can be misunderstanding, and because of this it is perhaps no bad thing.
The first point I should like to stress is that these matters are handled personally by the Home Secretary of the day. They are not handled by anyone else—

not by any other Minister and still less by officials. The principles and procedures were set out in a report of a committee of Privy Councillors, to which my hon. Friend has referred—the Birkett committee. It has formed ever since the basis for the interception of communications, and it continues to be the basis for current practice. Perhaps it would be helpful, in the short time I have available, if I were to remind the House of some of its more salient features.
First, we should consider the purposes for which interception of communications may be carried out. The conditions to be satisfied before interception could be considered were laid down in 1951 and they were endorsed by Birkett in 1957.
First, as regards interceptions for the police and the Customs and Excise, there are three requirements, all of which must be met. The offence must be really serious. That means for the police that the offences involved must be offences for which a man with no previous record could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, or offences of a lesser gravity in which a large number of people were concerned. For the Customs and Excise, the case must involve a substantial and continuing fraud which would seriously damage the revenue or the economy of the country if it went unchecked.
Normal methods of investigation must have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of things, be unlikely to succeed if tried.
There must be good reason to think that an interception would result in a conviction.
The Birkett committee stated in paragraph 67 the principles concerning interception on behalf of the security services. It said:
There must be a major espionage or subversive activity that is likely to injure the national interest. … The material likely to be obtained by interception must be of direct use in compiling the information that is necessary to the Security Service in carrying out the tasks laid upon it by the State.
These continue to be the requirements today.
The Birkett committee endorsed the use of interceptions by the police, Customs and Excise and the security service, and in paragraphs 141 and 142 of its report it said:


In the first great field where the power has been and is exercised—that of national security—we feel no doubt at all in recommending that the powers of interception should continue to be used, subject to the conditions and safeguards",
which it set out. On the police side, it said:
The police ought not to be handicapped in their efforts to prevent or to detect crime, whilst the criminal is allowed to use every modern method to achieve his purpose.
It went on to say:
If the police were to be deprived of the power to tap telephone wires in cases of serious crime, the criminal class would be given the use of the elaborate system set up by the State and use it to conspire and plot for criminal purposes to the great injury of the law-abiding citizen. The telephone could then be used with impunity to arrange the last-minute details, for example, of a mail van robbery, a theft on an organised scale, an assault with robbery on a citizen, or indeed any form of crime.
I do not believe that anybody would question the arguments for having access to this means of investigation for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious or violent crime, or of protecting the essential security of the State. Where the room for argument lies is the extent of its use and the safeguards to which it should be subject.
The Birkett committee was in no doubt that this power needed to be exercised with the greatest care. The most important aspect relates to the authority required for telephone interceptions. This may be done only on the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State. In England and Wales, that is me. In Scotland, it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Again in terms of authorisation, I consider every application for interception myself, and that is equally true of my right hon. Friend. I decide whether it matches up to the criteria that I gave a few minutes ago. Unless I am satisfied on this score, the application is rejected.
The police cannot intercept communications on their own account; nor can the security service or the Customs and Excise. None of these agencies has either the authority or the means to secure the interception of communications other than by following the prescribed procedures, which involve applying to me, by signing the warrant, and the Post Office carrying out the warrant.
Only the Post Office has the technical means to intercept communications, and the Post Office will not intercept communications other than under that warrant. Any official of the Post Office acting other than under that warrant would commit a criminal offence.
There are those who argue—my hon. Friend did not—that the Home Secretary must be far too busy a man to consider all these applications personally, so that these matters must obviously be delegated. This is not so. The task is not, and should not be, delegated, and there is no other way in which interception may be carried out. The system depends upon personal consideration and authorisation by the Secretary of State of every application for an intercept.
The Birkett committee recommended a number of other safeguards. These, too, continue to be followed strictly. They relate to the number of people who have access to the intercepted material being kept to a minimum, to regular reviews of outstanding warrants, to the period of time for which warrants may be valid when they are signed, to the cancellation of warrants, to the particular details to be set out on the face of each warrant, to the keeping of records, and so on.
The Birkett committee dealt with the question of the statistics on interception. All the agencies concerned thought that the disclosure of the statistics of interception would impair its effectiveness as a means of detection. The Birkett committee was particularly anxious about interception on behalf of the security service. It said in paragraph 121:
We are strongly of the opinion that it would be wrong for figures to be disclosed by the Secretary of State at regular or irregular intervals in the future. It would greatly aid the operation of agencies hostile to the State if they were able to estimate even approximately the extent of the interception of communications for security purposes.
This leaves the field open, of course, to those who say that the number must be very large because the Government will not say what it is. That is a disadvantage, and I am conscious of it. A future Government may want to consider whether there is any way of overcoming it without incurring the risks which the Birkett committee feared. I do not propose to break the rule tonight, at this stage of this Parliament, but I will say


this. The actual numbers are far below the guesses that have recently been given some currency, but I am aware of the problem in that respect.
The principles and procedures continue to follow those recommended by Birkett. My own belief is that the criteria on which interception is based continue to hold good and that the safeguards against abuse are the most effective we could devise.
My hon. Friend has reminded the House of some of the points made by the learned judge in a recent case before the Vice-Chancellor. He confirmed—my hon. Friend has made the point quite fairly—that telephone tapping was not illegal but suggested that whatever safeguards are appropriate should be embodied in legislation. When the judgment in that case was made known, I made a full statement because I thought it right to set out clearly the Government's position on so sensitive and important a matter. I said: I understand that in his judgment in Malone v. Commissioner of Police, the Vice-Chancellor found that the interception of a telephone at the request of the police under warrant of a Secretary of State was not illegal under English law. He made it clear that it was not for the English courts to rule on the question whether such interception, as carried out in this country, did or did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Only the European Commission and Court of Human Rights could pronounce on that.
The Vice-Chancellor drew attention, however, to the fact that the restrictions and safeguards under which interception is conducted are in this country matters of administrative practice only and not, as in some other countries, of statute; and he expressed the view that this was a matter which cried out for legislation.
As regards the European Convention, I am in the same position as the Vice-Chancellor. It is not for me to say what does or does not comply with it. All I can say is that neither the Commission nor the Court has had occasion to consider our practice in this matter. I understand that the plaintiff in the recent action may be considering taking a case to the European Commission. If he decides to do so, we shall see what they say.
Legislation is not required to legalise telephone interception. If it is required at all, it would be for the purpose of entrenching in statute the appropriate restrictions and safeguards under which interception is practised. The restrictions and safeguards applicable in this country were scrutinised and commended in 1957 by the Birkett committee. Their report has ever since then provided the basis

on which interception is carried out, and I can assure the House that it continues to do so today.
I recognise the importance of adequate and effective safeguards for the liberty of the subject. I believe that our safeguards are adequate and effective for this purpose. The Vice-Chancellor clearly thought that safeguards should be entrenched in legislation. When the full text of his judgment is available, I shall study it with the greatest care and respect. In carrying out the study and arriving at conclusion, of which I will in due course inform the House, I shall have regard not only to the need for safeguards which protect the liberty of the subject but also to the need not to damage the efficacy of a tool of investigation which can be invaluable to the police and the other agencies concerned when other methods have been tried and have failed, or are unlikely to succeed. As the Birket committee said, such damage, so far from strengthening the liberty of the ordinary citizen, might very well have the opposite effect.
There is nothing that I can add to that.
We in the Government are carefully studying the Vice-Chancellor's judgment, which runs to 66 pages of typescript. We are considering its implications. What my hon. Friend has said will also be taken into account. But it is too early to make any further statement.
I acknowledge that this is a difficult and sensitive subject. Considerable secrecy is essential to operational effectiveness, and that means that a Minister cannot take the course of allaying concern by publishing information. The essential element in our system—I have thought carefully about this—is that successive Parliaments have been prepared to repose trust in successive Home Secretaries. That is its own safeguard, because none of those concerned—Ministers, officials, and agencies—would ever wish to do anything to abuse that trust or to call it in question.
I can assure the House that in my period of office I have been deeply conscious of that trust and have at all times been at pains to preserve it. I have no doubt that that will continue to be true of future Secretaries of State as it has been of me and my predecessors. A judgment has been made, and I am considering it very carefully. I will at the appropriate moment—it might sound a little odd tonight—make a further statement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend said that if a telephone tap


took place without the authority of the warrant it was a criminal offence.

Mr. Rees: Yes.

Mr. Lyon: But if the Vice-Chancellor had ruled that there was no prohibition against telephone tapping anyway, how could it be a criminal offence if a telephone was tapped without a warrant?

Mr. Rees: The authority for doing that can come only from me. It is a

criminal offence if it is done without my authorisation to the Post Office. I should be happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend. I am confident that there is no way of doing what he refers to. I am equally confident that it is a criminal offence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.